- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:06:45 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Added as i49; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i49 On 2006/12/13, at 2:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Hi, > > I was looking at RFC2616, Section 13.5.1 which currently ends with > (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.5.1>): > > Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header, > (section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). > > Sorry? > > My first idea was that the comma was just in the wrong place, > making it > > Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header > (section 14.10), to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). > > But of course that still doesn't make any sense. > > So I looked at RFC2068, Section 13.5.1 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/ > rfc2068#section-13.5.1>) and that one says: > > Hop-by-hop headers introduced in future versions of HTTP MUST be > listed in a Connection header, as described in section 14.10. > > Now that makes sense, and it seems that RFC2616 was broken when > somebody tried to rewrite that sentence. > > Proposal: just say...: > > Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header > (Section 14.10). > > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 January 2007 01:07:05 UTC