Re: Issue 161, was: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> It gives me a bit of pause, but I think that's OK (as long as they're 
>> all clearly defined as DIGITs).
>> ...
> 
> They are.
> 
> Proposed patch: 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/161/161.diff>. 

I have heard no complaints so far; should I make this change?

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 06:51:33 UTC