Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)


> On 18 Aug 2016, at 00:43, Alex Rousskov <> wrote:
>> On 04/19/2016 12:18 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I *think* we've come to a place where there's agreement on accepting
>> the errata, but with BWS replacing OWS throughout; i.e.:
>> chunk-ext      = *( BWS  ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS  "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )
>> Everyone OK with that?
> There were no objections and two OKs (including mine).
>> If so -- Alexey, can we just annotate the errata with that when it's
>> accepted, or should this one be rejected and a new (smaller and
>> correct from the start) one be filed?
> It looks like this thread got stuck after that question and the errata
> entry is still in the "Reported" state. I have just witnessed a yet
> another developer being confused by this invisible syntax change. Mark,
> could you please push this fix forward somehow?

Can you please send me how you would like the erratum to look like, containing 3 parts: old text, new text and comments? Then I will get it fixed.

Thank you,

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:08:08 UTC