- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:51:31 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Well, 3143 is Informational, and IIRC it was considered as a way to > collect industry / community experience at that point in time, not an > authoritative list of errata, etc. > > I would treat it as an input document to this work, not necessarily > something we have to correct, refute, or harmonise with. If we're > interested in correcting other existing documents, I think BCP56 is more > important than this one... It is. On the other hand, advice like "you can't use extension methods because of a proxy requirement in RFC 2616" should be corrected. Does anybody recall the background of that? (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3143#section-2.2.2>)? BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 12 December 2008 12:52:15 UTC