Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages

On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> We've also briefly discussed folding RFC2145 into 2616bis, or at  
> least expanding upon the reference to make it more prominent and  
> give more context.

I am pretty sure that 2145 was already folded into 2616.  Maybe  
was left out, but I see no reason to add more redundant specification.


Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 00:00:05 UTC