* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Changeset 1685


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2012-06-22 00:32:37 (2 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@gmx.de
Message:

avoid the use of "may"/"should" when it could be confused with MAY/SHOULD

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
12 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html

    r1682 r1685  
    449449  }  
    450450  @bottom-center { 
    451        content: "Expires December 23, 2012";  
     451       content: "Expires December 24, 2012";  
    452452  }  
    453453  @bottom-right { 
     
    491491      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 
    492492      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest"> 
    493       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-21"> 
     493      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-22"> 
    494494      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2145"> 
    495495      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> 
     
    523523            </tr> 
    524524            <tr> 
    525                <td class="left">Expires: December 23, 2012</td> 
     525               <td class="left">Expires: December 24, 2012</td> 
    526526               <td class="right">greenbytes</td> 
    527527            </tr> 
    528528            <tr> 
    529529               <td class="left"></td> 
    530                <td class="right">June 21, 2012</td> 
     530               <td class="right">June 22, 2012</td> 
    531531            </tr> 
    532532         </tbody> 
     
    545545      </p>  
    546546      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    547       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     547      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    548548         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    549549      </p>   
     
    561561         in progress”. 
    562562      </p> 
    563       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012.</p> 
     563      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2012.</p> 
    564564      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 
    565565      <p>Copyright © 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> 
     
    914914         when transport-layer security is used to establish private communication through a shared firewall proxy. 
    915915      </p> 
    916       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there may exist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless 
     916      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless 
    917917         act as filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics, causing security problems, and otherwise making a 
    918918         mess of things). Such a network intermediary, often referred to as an "<dfn>interception proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC3040" id="rfc.xref.RFC3040.1"><cite title="Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy">[RFC3040]</cite></a>, "<dfn>transparent proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC1919" id="rfc.xref.RFC1919.1"><cite title="Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies">[RFC1919]</cite></a>, or "<dfn>captive portal</dfn>", differs from an HTTP proxy because it has not been selected by the client. Instead, the network intermediary redirects 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml

    r1682 r1685  
    139139<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    140140  <t> 
    141     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     141    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    142142    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    143143    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
     
    515515<t><iref primary="true" item="interception proxy"/><iref primary="true" item="transparent proxy"/> 
    516516<iref primary="true" item="captive portal"/> 
    517    In addition, there may exist network intermediaries that are not 
     517   In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not 
    518518   considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless act as 
    519519   filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics, 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

    r1684 r1685  
    547547      </p>  
    548548      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    549       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     549      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    550550         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    551551      </p>   
     
    931931      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="considerations.for.new.methods" href="#considerations.for.new.methods">Considerations for New Methods</a></h3> 
    932932      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that aren't specific to a single application or media type, 
    933          and currently defined methods are inadequate, it may be appropriate to register a new method. 
     933         and currently defined methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method. 
    934934      </p> 
    935935      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">HTTP methods are generic; that is, they are potentially applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type, "type" 
     
    11561156         if the eventual response is negative, and the connection may be reset with no response if more than one TCP segment is outstanding. 
    11571157      </p> 
    1158       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It may be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case, the 
    1159          first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority. 
     1158      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case, 
     1159         the first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority. 
    11601160      </p> 
    11611161      <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.11">If at any point either one of the peers gets disconnected, any outstanding data that came from that peer will be passed to 
     
    20342034<span id="s426body">This service requires use of the HTTP/3.0 protocol. 
    20352035</span></pre><p id="rfc.section.4.6.15.p.3">The server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a message body in the 426 response which indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any 
    2036          alternative courses which may be available to the user. 
     2036         alternative courses which might be available to the user. 
    20372037      </p> 
    20382038      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.7"><a href="#rfc.section.4.7">4.7</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.5xx" href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a></h2> 
     
    36233623         no better mechanism. 
    36243624      </p> 
    3625       <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field may contain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material, 
     3625      <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material, 
    36263626         to uniquely identify the user. 
    36273627      </p> 
     
    45584558      <p id="rfc.section.E.26.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 
    45594559      <ul> 
    4560          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>&gt;: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect may cause inconvenience 
     4560         <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>&gt;: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience 
    45614561            in some cases) 
    45624562         </li> 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

    r1684 r1685  
    202202<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    203203  <t> 
    204     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     204    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    205205    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    206206    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
     
    469469   When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that 
    470470   aren't specific to a single application or media type, and currently defined 
    471    methods are inadequate, it may be appropriate to register a new method. 
     471   methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method. 
    472472</t> 
    473473<t> 
     
    937937</t> 
    938938<t> 
    939    It may be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested 
     939   It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested 
    940940   origin server through another proxy.  In this case, the first proxy 
    941941   &SHOULD; make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel 
     
    20032003   The server &SHOULD; include a message body in the 426 response which 
    20042004   indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any 
    2005    alternative courses which may be available to the user. 
     2005   alternative courses which might be available to the user. 
    20062006</t> 
    20072007</section> 
     
    44134413</t> 
    44144414<t> 
    4415    Furthermore, the User-Agent header field may contain enough entropy to be 
     4415   Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be 
    44164416   used, possibly in conjunction with other material, to uniquely identify the 
    44174417   user. 
     
    64236423      <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43"/>: 
    64246424      "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning 
    6425       about having a fragid on the redirect may cause inconvenience in 
     6425      about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience in 
    64266426      some cases)  
    64276427    </t> 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html

    r1684 r1685  
    539539      </p>  
    540540      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    541       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     541      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    542542         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    543543      </p>   
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.xml

    r1684 r1685  
    119119<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    120120  <t> 
    121     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     121    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    122122    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    123123    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html

    r1684 r1685  
    539539      <p>Part 5 defines range requests and the rules for constructing and combining responses to those requests.</p>  
    540540      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    541       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     541      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    542542         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    543543      </p>   
     
    885885</pre> </li> 
    886886      </ul> 
    887       <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it may be seen as a denial-of-service 
     887      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service 
    888888         attack), the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> treat the request as if the invalid Range header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 response containing 
    889889         the full representation). 
     
    11071107      </p> 
    11081108      <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="overlapping.ranges" href="#overlapping.ranges">Overlapping Ranges</a></h2> 
    1109       <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges may lead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size 
     1109      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size 
    11101110         of the complete resource representation. 
    11111111      </p> 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.xml

    r1684 r1685  
    115115<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    116116  <t> 
    117     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     117    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    118118    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    119119    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
     
    623623<t> 
    624624   If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is 
    625    syntactically invalid, or if it may be seen as a denial-of-service 
     625   syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service 
    626626   attack), the server &SHOULD; treat the request as if the invalid Range 
    627627   header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 
     
    963963<section title="Overlapping Ranges" anchor="overlapping.ranges"> 
    964964<t> 
    965    Range requests containing overlapping ranges may lead to the situation 
     965   Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation 
    966966   where a server is sending far more data than the size of the complete 
    967967   resource representation. 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html

    r1684 r1685  
    551551      </p>  
    552552      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    553       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     553      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    554554         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    555555      </p>   
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.xml

    r1684 r1685  
    135135<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    136136  <t> 
    137     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     137    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    138138    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    139139    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html

    r1684 r1685  
    537537      <p>Part 7 defines the HTTP Authentication framework.</p>  
    538538      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>  
    539       <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
     539      <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 
    540540         at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;. 
    541541      </p>   
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.xml

    r1684 r1685  
    112112<note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 
    113113  <t> 
    114     Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
     114    Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 
    115115    mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 
    116116    <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. 
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.