Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4169)

On Nov 10, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> Roy suggests that the example is in error. Is this really a technical
>> erratum then?
> 
> I thought about that, but decided that the error could mislead someone
> into producing or accepting the trailing blanks, so I left it as
> "technical".

That's actually not a problem, since it would just be treated as the
trailing whitespace in the header field ABNF.

This doesn't really fit either errata type.  What the database needs is
a separate "error in example" type.

....Roy

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 00:46:53 UTC