Hi Mykyta,
At 05:53 17-12-10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
I find 'processed' more acceptable for this case. However to mind it
would be better to mention 'not supported'
You could use "not supported" if you find that better.
What do you mean? Packets have nothing to do with headers, there is
nothing about this in paragraph above. Maybe you meant middle-boxes?
Daniel Stenberg already commented on this [1]. The term
"middle-boxes", as used in the document, lumps everything in the
middle together even if the "hosts" operate at different layers. As
the proposal uses a "MUST" in the third paragraph of Section 2.1, the
compliance is dependent upon "hosts" which are generally not part of
HTTP infrastructure.
I'll let you know as soon new version of the draft will be available
(maybe that will be at the end of Last Call).
You can ask the sponsoring Area Director if you need guidance. It is
assumed that you will have done some research first before asking for
help. That includes learning how the IETF process works.
If people argue for a change, that doesn't mean that the author of a
draft must make the change. The author should keep in mind that the
strong discontent in such a case can hamper the publication of the draft.
It is also good to take into account whether you want the draft
published as a RFC or whether you would like widespread
implementation of the proposal. The latter requires that you
convince implementors about the merits of the proposal. Obviously,
they would not be convinced if their comments are ignored.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg64887.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf