Issue 121 (RFC 1806 vs RFC2183), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>> 1) s/1806/2183/g (this is editorial, methinks)
>>
>> +1
>> ...
> 
> I just noticed that in a different place, the spec cites RFC 1806 and 
> then goes on saying it was updated by RFC 2183. Citing RFC 1806 seems to 
> be only useful in order to tell the history of the header, which I think 
> isn't what the HTTP spec is for.
> 
> Thus I'd propose to get rid of the RFC 1806 reference, and streamline 
> the prose accordingly.

Issue: <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121>

Fixed with: <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/269>

BR, Julian