Changeset 1685

Timestamp:

Jun 22, 2012, 12:32:37 AM (7 years ago)

Author:

julian.reschke@…

Message:

avoid the use of "may"/"should" when it could be confused with MAY/SHOULD

Location:

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest

Files:

• p1-messaging.html (modified) (6 diffs)
• p1-messaging.xml (modified) (2 diffs)
• p2-semantics.html (modified) (6 diffs)
• p2-semantics.xml (modified) (6 diffs)
• p4-conditional.html (modified) (1 diff)
• p4-conditional.xml (modified) (1 diff)
• p5-range.html (modified) (3 diffs)
• p5-range.xml (modified) (3 diffs)
• p6-cache.html (modified) (1 diff)
• p6-cache.xml (modified) (1 diff)
• p7-auth.html (modified) (1 diff)
• p7-auth.xml (modified) (1 diff)

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html

@@ -449 +449 @@
   } 
   @bottom-center {
-       content: "Expires December 23, 2012"; 
+       content: "Expires December 24, 2012"; 
   } 
   @bottom-right {
@@ -491 +491 @@
       <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
       <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest">
-      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-21">
+      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-22">
       <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2145">
       <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
@@ -523 +523 @@
             </tr>
             <tr>
-               <td class="left">Expires: December 23, 2012</td>
+               <td class="left">Expires: December 24, 2012</td>
                <td class="right">greenbytes</td>
             </tr>
             <tr>
                <td class="left"></td>
-               <td class="right">June 21, 2012</td>
+               <td class="right">June 22, 2012</td>
             </tr>
          </tbody>
@@ -545 +545 @@
       </p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  
@@ -561 +561 @@
          in progress”.
       </p>
-      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012.</p>
+      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2012.</p>
       <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
       <p>Copyright © 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
@@ -914 +914 @@
          when transport-layer security is used to establish private communication through a shared firewall proxy.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there may exist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless
          act as filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics, causing security problems, and otherwise making a
          mess of things). Such a network intermediary, often referred to as an "<dfn>interception proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC3040" id="rfc.xref.RFC3040.1"><cite title="Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy">[RFC3040]</cite></a>, "<dfn>transparent proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC1919" id="rfc.xref.RFC1919.1"><cite title="Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies">[RFC1919]</cite></a>, or "<dfn>captive portal</dfn>", differs from an HTTP proxy because it has not been selected by the client. Instead, the network intermediary redirects

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml

@@ -139 +139 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.
@@ -515 +515 @@
 <t><iref primary="true" item="interception proxy"/><iref primary="true" item="transparent proxy"/>
 <iref primary="true" item="captive portal"/>
-   In addition, there may exist network intermediaries that are not
+   In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not
    considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless act as
    filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics,

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

@@ -547 +547 @@
       </p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  
@@ -931 +931 @@
       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="considerations.for.new.methods" href="#considerations.for.new.methods">Considerations for New Methods</a></h3>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that aren't specific to a single application or media type,
-         and currently defined methods are inadequate, it may be appropriate to register a new method.
+         and currently defined methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method.
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">HTTP methods are generic; that is, they are potentially applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type, "type"
@@ -1156 +1156 @@
          if the eventual response is negative, and the connection may be reset with no response if more than one TCP segment is outstanding.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It may be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case, the
-         first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority.
+      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case,
+         the first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority.
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.11">If at any point either one of the peers gets disconnected, any outstanding data that came from that peer will be passed to
@@ -2034 +2034 @@
 <span id="s426body">This service requires use of the HTTP/3.0 protocol.
 </span></pre><p id="rfc.section.4.6.15.p.3">The server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a message body in the 426 response which indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any
-         alternative courses which may be available to the user.
+         alternative courses which might be available to the user.
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.4.7"><a href="#rfc.section.4.7">4.7</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.5xx" href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a></h2>
@@ -3623 +3623 @@
          no better mechanism.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field may contain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material,
+      <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material,
          to uniquely identify the user.
       </p>
@@ -4558 +4558 @@
       <p id="rfc.section.E.26.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
       <ul>
-         <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>&gt;: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect may cause inconvenience
+         <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>&gt;: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience
             in some cases)
          </li>

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

@@ -202 +202 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.
@@ -469 +469 @@
    When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that
    aren't specific to a single application or media type, and currently defined
-   methods are inadequate, it may be appropriate to register a new method.
+   methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method.
 </t>
 <t>
@@ -937 +937 @@
 </t>
 <t>
-   It may be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested
+   It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested
    origin server through another proxy.  In this case, the first proxy
    &SHOULD; make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel
@@ -2003 +2003 @@
    The server &SHOULD; include a message body in the 426 response which
    indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any
-   alternative courses which may be available to the user.
+   alternative courses which might be available to the user.
 </t>
 </section>
@@ -4413 +4413 @@
 </t>
 <t>
-   Furthermore, the User-Agent header field may contain enough entropy to be
+   Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be
    used, possibly in conjunction with other material, to uniquely identify the
    user.
@@ -6423 +6423 @@
       <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43"/>:
       "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning
-      about having a fragid on the redirect may cause inconvenience in
+      about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience in
       some cases) 
     </t>

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html

@@ -539 +539 @@
       </p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.xml

@@ -119 +119 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html

@@ -539 +539 @@
       <p>Part 5 defines range requests and the rules for constructing and combining responses to those requests.</p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  
@@ -885 +885 @@
 </pre> </li>
       </ul>
-      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it may be seen as a denial-of-service
+      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service
          attack), the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> treat the request as if the invalid Range header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 response containing
          the full representation).
@@ -1107 +1107 @@
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="overlapping.ranges" href="#overlapping.ranges">Overlapping Ranges</a></h2>
-      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges may lead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size
+      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size
          of the complete resource representation.
       </p>

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.xml

@@ -115 +115 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.
@@ -623 +623 @@
 <t>
    If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is
-   syntactically invalid, or if it may be seen as a denial-of-service
+   syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service
    attack), the server &SHOULD; treat the request as if the invalid Range
    header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200
@@ -963 +963 @@
 <section title="Overlapping Ranges" anchor="overlapping.ranges">
 <t>
-   Range requests containing overlapping ranges may lead to the situation
+   Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation
    where a server is sending far more data than the size of the complete
    resource representation.

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html

@@ -551 +551 @@
       </p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.xml

@@ -135 +135 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html

@@ -537 +537 @@
       <p>Part 7 defines the HTTP Authentication framework.</p> 
       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
-      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
+      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived
          at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.xml

@@ -112 +112 @@
 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)">
   <t>
-    Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group
+    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group
     mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
     <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.