Re: [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> The proposed resolution to this issue (in draft 03) is incorrect
> because RFC1036 doesn't define the date format in question.
> This was an error introduced in the 2616 editing cycle.  It should
> be fixed by removing reference to 1036, as described below:
> ...

Good catch, thanks. Updated 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation> 
accordingly.

Now this is a good example that external references are more useful when 
they point to a specific section; in this case this would have made 
easier to detect the problem.

By that reasoning, shouldn't we possibly say:

   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete format defined in [RFC850], 
Section 2.1.4

instead of

   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format

?

Best regards, Julian