RE: minor editorial issues in draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-06.txt

I see that we've been inconsistent about whether -header BNF
non-terminals include or do not include CRLF.

If there's no objection, I will forward these requests to
the RFC editor as well; I imagine that Keith will need to
ask for IESG approval.

I hope there aren't a lot more like these, or we might be
forced to reballot.

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 5:22 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Keith Moore; http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: minor editorial issues in
> draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-06.txt 
> 
> 
> >Section 3.6.1 "Chunked Transfer Coding"
> >Change
> >   trailer        = *entity-header
> >to
> >   trailer        = *(entity-header CRLF)
> 
> 
> Ummm, while you are at it, you might also want to fix
> 
> ================
> 4.1 Message Types:
> Change
>         generic-message = start-line
>                           *message-header
>                           CRLF
>                           [ message-body ]
> to
>         generic-message = start-line
>                           *(message-header CRLF)
>                           CRLF
>                           [ message-body ]
> ================
> 4.2 Message Headers:
> Change
>        message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ] CRLF
> to
>        message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
> ================
> 5 Request
> Change
>         Request       = Request-Line              ; Section 5.1
>                         *( general-header         ; Section 4.5
>                          | request-header         ; Section 5.3
>                          | entity-header )        ; Section 7.1
>                         CRLF
>                         [ message-body ]          ; Section 4.3
> to
>         Request       = Request-Line              ; Section 5.1
>                         *(( general-header        ; Section 4.5
>                           | request-header        ; Section 5.3
>                           | entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1
>                         CRLF
>                         [ message-body ]          ; Section 4.3
> ================
> 6 Response
> Change
>        Response      = Status-Line               ; Section 6.1
>                        *( general-header         ; Section 4.5
>                         | response-header        ; Section 6.2
>                         | entity-header )        ; Section 7.1
>                        CRLF
>                        [ message-body ]          ; Section 7.2
> to
>        Response      = Status-Line               ; Section 6.1
>                        *(( general-header        ; Section 4.5
>                          | response-header       ; Section 6.2
>                          | entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1
>                        CRLF
>                        [ message-body ]          ; Section 7.2
> ================
> 
> Note that these are all the same error, and it's been in the spec
> since the very first draft (November 28, 1994).  *sigh*
> I'll let you decide whether or not to forward this to the RFC editor.
> 
> ....Roy
>

Received on Monday, 1 March 1999 14:16:05 UTC