ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

2005-02-18 01:14:42

At 23:22 04/10/26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>On Sun October 24 2004 22:46, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>> I have added a very clear sentence saying that the field MUST only be
>> created if the message is actually being made available at the URI given
>> in the header field. Do you think that this should say anything more?
>
>Since (unlike Reply-To and Sender) the proposed field plays no
>role in message protocols, but is simply a way of conveying
>additional information, "MUST" may be too strong.

Good point, added a reference to RFC 2119 and changed "MUST"
to "SHOULD".

Regards,    Martin.

>RFC 2119
>specifically states that it must not be used except to ensure
>interoperation or to avoid network damage (retransmissions,
>etc.).  Incidentally, it is customary to include some boilerplate
>text referring to the RFC 2119-defined terms and to include
>RFC 2119 as a normative reference when making use of those
>terms.  Of course if you intentionally did not reference RFC
>2119 because you intend your use of "MUST", "MUST NOT",
>"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" to have different
>meanings than the ones ascribed by RFC 2119, that raises
>the question of precisely what meaning *is* intended.