Re: conformance languages (issue 278), was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.txt> (Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> I agree that this needs tuning; but I'd rather not invent a new keyword for
> that.

Sensible.

> The appendix D
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.D>)
> isn't meant to be normative; thus I believe leaving it the way it is ought
> to be ok.

OK.

> With respect to
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.4.3>,
> I believe we really should say "SHOULD" in all the three last items:

It all works for me.  Thanks, and again, I'm sorry to pipe in late.

Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]