Re: Bad link in RFC 7234

Same problem here:



   The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-7.1.1.1>
   7.1.1.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-7.1.1.1> of
[RFC7231 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231>].


On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Will Sargent <will.sargent@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>> >
>>
>>
>