Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5257)

LGTM, but maybe a little more clear if you swap the order of the first 
two alternatives.


On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Pe, Erwin (US) wrote:
> Thanks for the correction. But I worry that with your proposed BNF, it 
> is possible to make a production that ends with OWS. The current BNF 
> does not allow productions that end in OWS, and I believe that is so 
> that there wouldn’t be redundant OWS when the list is a field-value in a
>     header-field = field-name “:” OWS field-value OWS
> rule. To address the issues you’ve brought up, I propose another 
> correction:
>     #element => [ ( ("," [ OWS element ]) / element ) *( OWS "," [ OWS 
> element ] ) ]