Re: Bad link in RFC 7234

I think perhaps the reason it's broken is because it's defined as two
distinct links, which results in the markup tool being confused.

In other cases, you can see links are defined as "Section 2.3 of [RFC7232]"
covering the entire text, which perhaps the tool is better able to
understand.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:

> This is a problem with the tools.ietf.org rfcmarkup tool and nothing to
> do with the RFC itself.
>
> Comments on that should probably be directed to tools-discuss@ietf.org.
>
>     Tony Hansen
>
> On 4/29/15 4:09 PM, Will Sargent wrote:
> > In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2
> >
> >  "heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit freshness
> >  whose status codes are defined as cacheable by default (see Section
> >  6.1 of [RFC7231])"
> >
> > The link marking "Section 6.1" has a URL
> > of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-6.1 -- it should
> > be https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.1 instead.
> >
> > Will.
> >
>
>