Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#476 closed editorial (incorporated)
SHOULD and conformance
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 23 |
Component: | p1-messaging | Severity: | In WG Last Call |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Up until now, we've had this to say about the status of SHOULDs regarding conformance (p1, "Conformance and Error Handling):
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.
After reviewing the specs (and taking in account the misused SHOULDs and those I think should be stronger, see previous messages), I believe that ALL of the remaining SHOULDs in the set are NOT relevant to conformance, but instead represent implementation guidance.
So, I propose we change the text above in p1 to:
""" An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the MUST-level requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant to conformance, but do not formally impact it; instead, they represent implementation guidance. """
Thoughts?
Change History (2)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 23
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by fielding@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
- Type changed from design to editorial
Proposal from list is to just remove the second sentence.