Subject: [editorial] awkward sentence for a MUST statement in section 6.3 Upgrade

From: Karl Dubost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:53:27 +0900

This is just an editorial comment.

In section 6.3 Upgrade in Version 21 of messaging
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21#section-6.3

    For example, if the Upgrade header field 
    is received in a GET request and the server 
    decides to switch protocols, then it MUST 
    first respond with a 101 (Switching Protocols) 
    message in HTTP/1.1 and then immediately 
    follow that with the new protocol's equivalent 
    of a response to a GET on the target resource.

I would drop the "For example", if it's really a MUST.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:43:21 -0500

Very good catch, Karl!

> I would drop the "For example", if it's really a MUST.

I think that's not the right fix, though.  It really is an example,
and the MUST is already specified above this.  I think the right
answer is to lower-case the "must", or change it to "then it first
responds... and immediately follows that...."

Barry

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:42:27 +0100

> responds... and immediately follows that...."

Indeed: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2101>.

BTW, Roy has been very busy updating Parts 1 and 2, so right now, it's 
much more useful to review the current edits in SVN (see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki#HTTP1.1Deliverables>).

Best regards, Julian