Re: HTTP/1.1: RFC2068 versus RFC2616, RFC1590 versus RFC2048

* "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:
| Greetings,
| In discussion on a German-language usenet group, Bjoern Hoehrmann
| has pointed out a surprising discrepancy between RFC2068 and RFC2616.
| It was not entirely clear to me where this should be reported, but
| your email address is on the issues list page at W3C, so maybe this is
| the place to try first.

Amazing coincidence :-) I was going to ask at the HTTP WG Mailing List when
your mail arrived. So let's ask there:

| In section 3.7 "Media Types", the earlier RFC2068 refers correctly to
| RFC2048 in relation to IANA registrations, but the later RFC still
| refers to the obsoleted RFC1590.
| Looking at the history of these documents as noted at
| one finds that _all_ of the drafts (even the one which is described as
| having become RFC2068) are citing the obsolete RFC1590.  However,
| RFC2068 itself had been corrected to cite RFC2048.
| As far as I could determine, the documents which set out the
| differences between RFC2068 and the later drafts make no mention of
| this difference - not even the ones which claim to show change-bars
| >from RFC2068.  So it appears that the correction must have been
| slipped-in to RFC2068 at the last moment - and somehow left no tracks
| on the main drafting sequence.
| I don't see any mention of this on the HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata
| page at
| either.
| Maybe an item should be added to the errata, calling for the
| reference to RFC1590 to be corrected to RFC2048?

best regards,
Björn Höhrmann ^ ^
am Badedeich 7 ° Telefon: +49(0)4667/981ASK °
25899 Dagebüll # PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 # +{i}
    --- All I want for Christmas is well-formedness -- Evan Lenz ---

Received on Sunday, 10 September 2000 06:50:53 UTC