Re: NEW ISSUE: editorial bug in 13.5.1

Jeffrey Mogul schrieb:
 > ...
> <rant>
> This is when it would be nice to have access to the Internet-Draft
> versions that expired along the way, rather than having them consigned
> to IETF's Orwellian memory hole.  
> </rant>

Such as at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/http/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev/>? (Thanks 
thanks thanks to the IETF tool team for the good work!).

> Fortunately, these are available on the Web (although some of the
> versions out there seem to have been truncated accidentally).  The
> change crept in between draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-05.txt and
> draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-06.txt (which, I believe, was the
> last version before the RFC).
> 
>     Proposal: just say...:
>     
>         Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
>         (Section 14.10).
>     
>     
> I suspect what the re-writer (probably not me!) meant was something
> like:
> 
>         Other hop-by-hop headers, if they are introduced either
> 	in HTTP/1.1 or later versions of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed
> 	in a Connection header (Section 14.10).
> 
> (It's not clear that the HTTP/1.1 spec can impose this kind of rule on
> HTTP/N.M where N > 1.)

I would think that in general the spec talks about HTTP/1.1, and if it 
wants to talk about future versions, it has to specifically do so.

So the original problem seems to be that the spec defines the complete 
set of hop-by-hop headers, and then talks about not defined above. Maybe 
the text needs to be expanded to something like:

	Future revisions of the HTTP/1.1 specification and later
	versions of HTTP MAY introduce new hop-by-hop headers. Those
	headers MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10)
	for backwards compatibility with this specification.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 10:44:51 UTC