W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Minor issues with HTTP 1.1 draft 6

From: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@sterling.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 12:40:19 EDT
Message-Id: <199607151640.MAA16338@mail.Reston.VMD.Sterling.COM>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: ROSSP@ss1.reston.vmd.sterling.com
I can't find any trace of these in the http-wg archives, and they seem like
"editing" issues, so I hope they're appropriate to bring up at this point in
the RFC process.  There are a few small points in draft 6 of the HTTP 1.1
specification that seem to be incorrect:

   1) On page 30, section 4.2 "Message Headers" states 'Applications SHOULD
      follow "common form" when generating HTTP constructs, ...'.  The draft
      does not contain any definition of "common form", although by context it
      appears to mean "headers without RFC-822-style folding".

   2) On page 95, section 14.9 "Cache-Control" contains in the BNF for
      cache-request-directive, the alternative:

         '| "max-stale" "=" [ delta-seconds ]'

      It seems this should read:

         '| "max-stale" [ "=" delta-seconds ]'

      All other usages of "thing=value" where the value is optional take the
      form where the "=" is omitted with the value (i.e.  "max-stale", not
      "max-stale=").

   3) On page 105, section 14.15 "Content-Location" contains the phrase '...
      it is only a statement.  of the location of the resource ...', where the
      period after 'statement' is a typo.

   4) On pages 128-129, sections 14.45 "Warning", the references to
      "ISO-8599-1" are typos, they should read "ISO-8859-1".  They should
      probably also have pointers to reference [22] "ISO-8859 ...".

   5) On page 134, section 15.8 "DNS Spoofing" states that 'The deployment of
      DNSSEC should help this situation." without citation of DNSSEC.  There
      doesn't appear to be any RFC to cite at this time, although there are
      several valid Internet Drafts.  Either a citation should be added (in
      possible violation of the proper use of Internet Drafts) or the
      statement should be removed.

   6) On pages 137-139, section 17 "References", items [5] and [12] are not
      cited anywhere within the draft, and item [27] is omitted from the list.

Thanks for all the good work, the draft is extremely readable and generally
quite clear of some rather complex topics (especially cache behavior).

Ross Patterson
Sterling Software, Inc.
VM Software Division
Received on Monday, 15 July 1996 10:49:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:05 EDT