- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:57:57 -0800
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I often have to point people to 2145, because a) they're not aware of it, and b) 2616 doesn't go into much detail about this topic. On 26/11/2007, at 3:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> We've also briefly discussed folding RFC2145 into 2616bis, or at >> least expanding upon the reference to make it more prominent and >> give more context. > > I am pretty sure that 2145 was already folded into 2616. Maybe > something > was left out, but I see no reason to add more redundant specification. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 06:58:21 UTC