Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4351)

Folks - 

Please pare the distribution list down. 

From my standpoint —

This *was* discussed extensively on-list and we came to consensus; those who are proposing a change here should familiarise themselves with the issues:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/250
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/251
… and related list discussion, starting here:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0261.html
… and continuing here:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0262.html

Even if there does turn out to be an interop problem here, I'm having trouble seeing how what's being proposed will fit into what the IETF considers to be an erratum.

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 00:13:15 UTC