Changeset 1875 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html

Timestamp:

10/09/12 02:46:17 (9 years ago)

Author:

fielding@…

Message:

Be more consistent regarding targeting conformance requirements.
Only define conformance criteria once, but repeat required nits.

Remove antiquated requirement about media type parameters not being
recognized by 1993-era browsers.

Add reference to TLS in p1.

File:

• draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html (modified) (3 diffs)

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

@@ -573 +573 @@
       <ul class="toc">
          <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
-               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.conformance.and.error.handling">Conformance and Error Handling</a></li>
+               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></li>
                <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></li>
             </ul>
@@ -651 +651 @@
          selected representation.
       </p>
-      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.conformance.and.error.handling" href="#intro.conformance.and.error.handling">Conformance and Error Handling</a></h2>
+      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="conformance" href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></h2>
       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
          in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">This specification targets conformance criteria according to the role of a participant in HTTP communication. Hence, HTTP
-         requirements are placed on senders, recipients, clients, servers, user agents, intermediaries, origin servers, proxies, gateways,
-         or caches, depending on what behavior is being constrained by the requirement. See <a href="p1-messaging.html#architecture" title="Architecture">Section 2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a> for definitions of these terms.
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.3">The verb "generate" is used instead of "send" where a requirement differentiates between creating a protocol element and merely
-         forwarding a received element downstream.
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.4">An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the requirements associated with the roles it partakes
-         in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.5">This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements (<a href="#notation" title="Syntax Notation">Section&nbsp;1.2</a>). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon them, senders <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> generate protocol elements that do not match the grammar defined by the ABNF rules for those protocol elements that are applicable
-         to the sender's role. If a received protocol element is processed, the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to parse any value that would match the ABNF rules for that protocol element, excluding only those rules not applicable
-         to the recipient's role.
-      </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.6">Unless noted otherwise, a recipient <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> attempt to recover a usable protocol element from an invalid construct. HTTP does not define specific error handling mechanisms
-         except when they have a direct impact on security, since different applications of the protocol require different error handling
-         strategies. For example, a Web browser might wish to transparently recover from a response where the <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.location" class="smpl">Location</a> header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereas a systems control client might consider any form of error recovery
-         to be dangerous.
+      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#conformance" title="Conformance and Error Handling">Section 2.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2>
@@ -1463 +1446 @@
                   <li><em>Part1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">2.3.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">7</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">8</a>, <a href="#Part1"><b>9.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.9">B</a><ul>
                         <li><em>Section 1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">1.2</a></li>
-                        <li><em>Section 2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.1</a></li>
+                        <li><em>Section 2.5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.1</a></li>
                         <li><em>Section 3.2.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">B</a></li>
                         <li><em>Section 3.2.4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.9">B</a></li>