- From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 13:17:29 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
As another weak piece of evidence, Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/EhxcgsgikJo2BDFRbvVjBWshXPY said on 2014-06-07: Characters: 235053 And that is the size of the file http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.txt up to today: $ curl -sI https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.txt | grep ent-Le Content-Length: 235053 Phew. Grüße, Carsten > On 2022-01-10, at 10:47, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 10.01.2022 um 09:17 schrieb Julian Reschke: >> Am 10.01.2022 um 08:03 schrieb RFC Errata System: >>> ... >> >> The actual problem is that the ToC in the source file is mangled: >> >>> 7. Response Header Fields .........................................64 >>> 7.1. Control Data ..............................................64 >>> ed 7.1.1. Origination Date >>> ...................................65 >>> 7.1.2. Location ...........................................68 >> >> I don't think thatb was the case when RFC 7231 was published, but I >> can't prove that right now. >> >> Best regards, Julian > > Ok, trust in immutabililty restored...: > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20140614032649/https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.txt > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 12:17:46 UTC