W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

NEW ISSUE: editorial bug in 13.5.1

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:44:17 +0100
Message-ID: <457ECE51.8010505@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

I was looking at RFC2616, Section 13.5.1 which currently ends with 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.5.1>):

    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header,
    (section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later).

Sorry?

My first idea was that the comma was just in the wrong place, making it

    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
    (section 14.10), to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later).

But of course that still doesn't make any sense.

So I looked at RFC2068, Section 13.5.1 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-13.5.1>) and that one says:

    Hop-by-hop headers introduced in future versions of HTTP MUST be
    listed in a Connection header, as described in section 14.10.

Now that makes sense, and it seems that RFC2616 was broken when somebody 
tried to rewrite that sentence.

Proposal: just say...:

    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
    (Section 14.10).


Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 15:44:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT