Ignore:
Timestamp:
Oct 23, 2011, 1:20:31 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

Rephrase description of conformance; explain how the spec handles error handling (see #186)

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.xml

    r1443 r1452  
    1515  <!ENTITY ID-MONTH "October">
    1616  <!ENTITY ID-YEAR "2011">
     17  <!ENTITY architecture               "<xref target='Part1' x:rel='#architecture' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    1718  <!ENTITY notation                   "<xref target='Part1' x:rel='#notation' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    1819  <!ENTITY notation-abnf              "<xref target='Part1' x:rel='#notation.abnf' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
     
    254255</t>
    255256
    256 <section title="Requirements" anchor="intro.requirements">
     257<section title="Conformance and Error Handling" anchor="intro.conformance.and.error.handling">
    257258<t>
    258259   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
     
    261262</t>
    262263<t>
    263    An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
    264    of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it
    265    implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or "REQUIRED"
    266    level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its protocols is said
    267    to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the "MUST"
    268    level requirements but not all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its
    269    protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
     264   This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP
     265   communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-Agents,
     266   Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See &architecture;
     267   for definitions of these terms.
     268</t>
     269<t>
     270   An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the
     271   requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level requirements
     272   are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.
     273</t>
     274<t>
     275   This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
     276   (<xref target="notation"/>). In addition to the prose requirements placed
     277   upon them, Senders &MUST-NOT; generate protocol elements that are invalid.
     278</t>
     279<t>
     280   Unless noted otherwise, Recipients &MAY; take steps to recover a usable
     281   protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not define
     282   specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it has direct
     283   impact on security. This is because different uses of the protocol require
     284   different error handling strategies; for example, a Web browser may wish to
     285   transparently recover from a response where the Location header field
     286   doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereby in a systems control protocol
     287   using HTTP, this type of error recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.
    270288</t>
    271289</section>
     
    18251843<section title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-16" anchor="changes.since.16">
    18261844<t>
    1827   None yet.
     1845  Closed issues:
     1846  <list style="symbols">
     1847    <t>
     1848      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186"/>:
     1849      "Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy"
     1850    </t>
     1851  </list>
    18281852</t>
    18291853</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.