Opened 12 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#271 closed editorial (incorporated)

Review SHOULD-level requirements

Reported by: mnot@… Owned by: mnot@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 24
Component: non-specific Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:


We need to audit the SHOULDs and make sure that they are in the spirit of 2119; i.e., things that need a good reason to break. Ideally, we should list the reasons.

This may spawn some design tickets.

Attachments (1)

271-p7.diff (2.7 KB) - added by julian.reschke@… 10 years ago.
Proposed patch for Part 7

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (8)

comment:1 follow-up: Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…

Rough proposal: replace "Requirements" sections with following.

Conformance and Error Handling

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 [RFC2119].

This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-Agents, Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See [ref to Terminology] for a definition of each.

An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable.

This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements. In addition to the prose requirements placed upon them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid.

Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MAY take steps to recover a usable protocol element from an invalid construct, and SHOULD NOT reject the message outright.

However, HTTP does not define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where the Content-Type header doesn't match the body, whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…

Replying to mnot@…:

Oops, wrong ticket; nothing to see here.

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

Reviews for p4-p7 done.

Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Proposed patch for Part 7

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1691]:

tune conformance requirements (see #271)

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1694]:

tune conformance language (see #271)

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1707]:

tune conformance requirements (see #271)

comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 24
  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.