Skip to content

Reconciling MAY/can vs. SHOULD#101

Closed
MikeBishop wants to merge 1 commit into
httpwg:masterfrom
MikeBishop:should-may
Closed

Reconciling MAY/can vs. SHOULD#101
MikeBishop wants to merge 1 commit into
httpwg:masterfrom
MikeBishop:should-may

Conversation

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Client MAY (2.2) vs. SHOULD (2.4) use alternatives they're aware of; clients "can" (2.4) vs. SHOULD (5) include the Alt-Used header. Reconciling these both to SHOULDs.

Client MAY (2.2) vs. SHOULD (2.4) use alternatives they're aware of;
clients "can" (2.4) vs. SHOULD (5) include the Alt-Used header.
Reconciling these both to SHOULDs.
@martinthomson
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

LGTM

@reschke reschke added the alt-svc label Oct 7, 2015
@mnot mnot added the design label Nov 2, 2015
@mnot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mnot commented Nov 2, 2015

Discussed in Yokohama; this pull request seems reasonable.

reschke added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2015
@reschke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

reschke commented Nov 4, 2015

There are unfortunately 2 change request here, one of which I partly agree with, the other I disagree with.

The first one is caused by having normative language spread over 2.2 and 2.4; I tried to address this in acc3ae3.

The second one is about adding a duplicate requirement; I continue to believe we shouldn't do that. We can mention requirements multiple times, but only one place should have the magic keyword (otherwise we risk ending up with exactly the kind of inconsistencies this pull request is about).

@MikeBishop are you ok with the change?

@mnot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mnot commented Feb 4, 2016

I think this is resolved, but if you disagree, please open a new issue ASAP.

@mnot mnot closed this Feb 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants