- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:41:31 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 3, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> The proposed resolution to this issue (in draft 03) is incorrect >> because RFC1036 doesn't define the date format in question. >> This was an error introduced in the 2616 editing cycle. It should >> be fixed by removing reference to 1036, as described below: >> ... > > Good catch, thanks. Updated <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/ > rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.i47- > inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation> accordingly. > > Now this is a good example that external references are more useful > when they point to a specific section; in this case this would have > made easier to detect the problem. > > By that reasoning, shouldn't we possibly say: > > Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete format defined in > [RFC850], Section 2.1.4 > > instead of > > Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format That's how we arrived at the current bug -- the RFC editor saw the reference to RFC 850 and determined that we cannot refer to an obsoleted RFC, thus requiring the reference update to 1036. If we just include the number in the comment (without a Reference) then we should be fine. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 02:41:29 UTC