On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2. leave the default as 'not-strict'? Seems we should most > > strongly recommend that the server observe RFC's 2068, > > 2616 and 723x, and not tolerate ancient behavior by default > > unless the admin insists on being foolish. > > I am with you on default-to-strict in 2.4 and up. I'm hesitant about 2.2. > Since the project consensus is to support 2.2 through up to next summer, and these issues pose interop concerns, I don't think that we can separate 2.2 from 2.4 discussions at this level.
