Re: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

Martin Duerst wrote:
> A very tiny adjustment below. But since HTTP (RFC 2616) is still
> at Draft Standard, couldn't this kind of clarification be added
> in when going to Standard? Or is that the plan?

As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any kind of activity of 
updating RFC2616 (sad enough). But yes, should it ever be updated, I 
would expect it to incorporate whatever this document says in the end.

> ...

Best regards, Julian