Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4169)

Roy suggests that the example is in error. Is this really a technical
erratum then?
On Nov 10, 2014 1:07 PM, "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> > That would be true if the example was a header field, but it isn't.
> > It is only talking about the field-value of the production, which already
> > excludes the trailing whitespace of header-fields.
> >
> > So, the Errata is valid and the last example should not have trailing
> > space at the end of the value.
>
> ...which is why we wanted to wait for your comments.  I'm off to mark
> this "Verified" now.
>
> Barry
>
>