Changeset 847 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html

Timestamp:

12/07/10 11:11:48 (12 years ago)

Author:

julian.reschke@…

Message:

Make requirements sections consistent again.

File:

• draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html (modified) (5 diffs)

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

@@ -402 +402 @@
       <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
       <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest">
-      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-09">
+      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-12">
       <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
       <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document is Part 6 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 6 defines requirements on HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages.">
@@ -428 +428 @@
             </tr>
             <tr>
-               <td class="left">Expires: January 10, 2011</td>
+               <td class="left">Expires: January 13, 2011</td>
                <td class="right">J. Mogul</td>
             </tr>
@@ -489 +489 @@
             <tr>
                <td class="left"></td>
-               <td class="right">July 9, 2010</td>
+               <td class="right">July 12, 2010</td>
             </tr>
          </tbody>
@@ -515 +515 @@
          in progress”.
       </p>
-      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 10, 2011.</p>
+      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 13, 2011.</p>
       <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
       <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
@@ -695 +695 @@
          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.1.3.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
+      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the
+         protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements
+         for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not
+         all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
       </p>
       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.4"><a href="#rfc.section.1.4">1.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2>