Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6266 (5383)

On 2018-06-07 15:03, RFC Errata System wrote:
> ...

I believe we should reject this erratum.

Reasons:

1) When we'll revise RFC 6266, it'll be based on RFC 8187, not RFC 5987. 
This changes the whole base (of what is defined how in the ABNF).

2) To define new parameters for Content-Disposition, a spec would have 
to update RFC 6266, in which case the WG and/or IESG will need to ensure 
that no parameter name ending in "*" is defined without using the RFC 
8187 encoding.

Best regards, Julian