W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:20:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4898B614.3030707@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Just added... (<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/126>):

Part 4, Section 4.1:

"If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients 
add their own Date to any response received without one (as already 
specified by [RFC2068], Section 14.19), caches will operate correctly."

RFC2068, Section 14.19 is the definition of the Date header. Why does 
RFC2616 refer to RFC2068 instead to itself?

Proposal to reference Part 1, Section 8.3 instead.

(Historical note: that statement apparently was added in 
draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-08)

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 20:21:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT