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

Re: Accepting pre-existing errata resolutions

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:25:26 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1249k3pm4r9sba78mnrf515rl1gsuprk1d@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Prior to this WG starting up, there was an HTTP errata list  
>maintained at <http://skrb.org/ietf/http_errata.html>.

>We've all been looking at them a while, but please have one more look  
>through and make sure you're comfortable with the resolutions  
>proposed; if I don't hear anything in the next two weeks, I think  
>we'll have consensus on those resolutions*, and can move on.

There are a couple of errors, but they'll probably get fixed automa-
tically (e.g., RFC 2616 does not actually reference RFC 4288 as the
errata says, and the HTTP-Version grammar, if I recall correctly, as
specified there allows LWS in undesired places); as subsequent dis-
cussion has shown, there is probably no consensus on i5 (Via). I do
not agree with the i16 resolution ("identity") in that I think the
specification needs to discuss how to handle messages that use it
(e.g., Opera will include it in its TE header). I will open an issue
for that. Other than this seems fine.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 20:52:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT