Sep 9, 2012, 7:46:17 PM (7 years ago)

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.

1 edited


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

    r1873 r1875  
    570570      <ul class="toc">
    571571         <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
    572                <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>
     572               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></li>
    573573               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></li>
    574574            </ul>
    630630         provide authentication information. The "basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified in <cite title="HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" id="rfc.xref.RFC2617.2">RFC 2617</cite>.
    631631      </p>
    632       <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>
     632      <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>
    633633      <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"
    634634         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>.
    635635      </p>
    636       <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
    637          requirements are placed on senders, recipients, clients, servers, user agents, intermediaries, origin servers, proxies, gateways,
    638          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.Part1.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a> for definitions of these terms.
    639       </p>
    640       <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
    641          forwarding a received element downstream.
    642       </p>
    643       <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
    644          in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.
    645       </p>
    646       <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
    647          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
    648          to the recipient's role.
    649       </p>
    650       <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
    651          except when they have a direct impact on security, since different applications of the protocol require different error handling
    652          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
    653          to be dangerous.
     636      <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.Part1.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    654637      </p>
    655638      <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>
    12091192                  <li><em>Part1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">2.3.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">4.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">4.4</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">7</a>, <a href="#Part1"><b>8.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.9">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.10">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.11">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.12">B</a><ul>
    12101193                        <li><em>Section 1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.2</a></li>
    1211                         <li><em>Section 2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.1</a></li>
    12121194                        <li><em>Section 2.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">2.3.1</a></li>
     1195                        <li><em>Section 2.5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.1</a></li>
    12131196                        <li><em>Section 3.2.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.9">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.10">B</a></li>
    12141197                        <li><em>Section 3.2.4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.11">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.12">B</a></li>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.