David Orchard wrote: > How hard would it be to do an errata update to the RFC to fix this? Or > is this more difficult because there is separate work going on to update > the RFC? > > Cheers, > Dave As far as the IETF errata "process" is concerned, it is already an erratum -- the RFC Editor's errata page links to <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/>, and over there, the issue is recorded as <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i71> (along with Roy's proposed replacement text) Best regards, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:01:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 September 2008 07:02:15 GMT