On 7/15/10 9:08 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jul 14 02:50:22 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> However, it seems to me that BOSH has methods for ensuring that >> premature termination of that transport connection will not lead to >> indeterminate results (via the 'rid' attribute), so we have mostly good >> reasons for not adhering to the SHOULD NOT in RFC 2616 (which is >> repeated in draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging). >> >> Thoughts? > > 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that > there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the > particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full > implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed > before implementing any behavior described with this label. > > The particular behaviour is acceptable, because of the rid, and > certainly useful. We have weighed the full implications during the > design, and taken this into consideration in the design of the HTTP > message bodies.
I agree. It might be helpful to add a note about this to the next version of XEP-0124. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
