W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: editorial bug in 13.5.1

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:06:45 +1100
Message-Id: <6A21C17B-0A9A-4E5C-8ED6-C7156710080E@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Added as i49;
   http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i49


On 2006/12/13, at 2:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 January 2007 01:07:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT