Subject: NEW ISSUE: typo (?) in 14.18, rfc1123-format

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:19:29 +0100

Currently, RFC2616 says about the date format for the "Date" header 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.18>):

"The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST 
be sent in RFC 1123 [8]-date format."

It seems to me that this should really say:

"The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST 
be sent in rfc1123-date [8] format."

(because it refers to the "rfc1123-date" grammar production)

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:41:42 +0100

> be sent in rfc1123-date [8] format."

Better without the [8], making it an internal reference to the grammar.
The rfc1123-date is not a copy of RFC1123, only a subset thereof.

The relation to RFC 1123 is already well established elsewhere in 3.3.1,
including the MUST level requirement on sending the RFC 1123 derived
format.

A similar RFC 1123 reference which is better replaced by a rfc1123-date
grammar reference is also seen in 14.21 Last-Modified.

Regards
Henrik

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:50:31 -0800

Added: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i48

On 2006/11/20, at 6:19 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> "The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it  
> MUST be sent in RFC 1123 [8]-date format."
>
> "The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it  
> MUST be sent in rfc1123-date [8] format."
>

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:50:45 +0100

> The rfc1123-date is not a copy of RFC1123, only a subset thereof.

Agreed. Will make that change in 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.14.18>.

> grammar reference is also seen in 14.21 Last-Modified.

Agreed. See 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.14.21>.

Best regards and thanks for the feedback,

Julian