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/p5-range.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'/>">
     
    242243</t>
    243244
    244 <section title="Requirements" anchor="intro.requirements">
     245<section title="Conformance and Error Handling" anchor="intro.conformance.and.error.handling">
    245246<t>
    246247   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
     
    249250</t>
    250251<t>
    251    An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
    252    of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it
    253    implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or "REQUIRED"
    254    level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its protocols is said
    255    to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the "MUST"
    256    level requirements but not all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its
    257    protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
     252   This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP
     253   communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-Agents,
     254   Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See &architecture;
     255   for definitions of these terms.
     256</t>
     257<t>
     258   An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the
     259   requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level requirements
     260   are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.
     261</t>
     262<t>
     263   This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
     264   (<xref target="notation"/>). In addition to the prose requirements placed
     265   upon them, Senders &MUST-NOT; generate protocol elements that are invalid.
     266</t>
     267<t>
     268   Unless noted otherwise, Recipients &MAY; take steps to recover a usable
     269   protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not define
     270   specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it has direct
     271   impact on security. This is because different uses of the protocol require
     272   different error handling strategies; for example, a Web browser may wish to
     273   transparently recover from a response where the Location header field
     274   doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereby in a systems control protocol
     275   using HTTP, this type of error recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.
    258276</t>
    259277</section>
     
    17651783<section title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-16" anchor="changes.since.16">
    17661784<t>
    1767   None yet.
     1785  Closed issues:
     1786  <list style="symbols">
     1787    <t>
     1788      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186"/>:
     1789      "Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy"
     1790    </t>
     1791  </list>
    17681792</t>
    17691793</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.