Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129), was: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers

Brian Smith wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>   Note: the "Cookie" and "Set-Cookie" headers as implemented in
>>   practice (as opposed to how they are specified in [RFC2109])
>>   can occur multiple times, but do not use the list syntax, 
>>   and thus can not be combined into a single line.
>>   (See [Kri2001] for details.) Also note that the
>>   Cookie2/Set-Cookie2 headers specified in [RFC2965] do not
>>   share this problem.
> 
> "Cannot" is better than "can not" here. But, what exactly does "cannot" mean

Ack.

> in a specification? Instead of making this a note, it is better to make it a
> normative part of the specification using RFC 2119 language:

I doubt that we can get consensus to add more than a note here. But 
let's hear what the WG thinks.

> ...
> Dave Kristol's paper is excellent but it is large and it talks about
> political things as much as it talks about technical concerns. That is why I
> changed the citation to mention section A.2.3 specifically.
> ...

Ack.

-> 
<http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/129/i129.2.diff>

BR, Julian