Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: editorial bug in 13.5.1

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:06:45 +1100

Added as i49;
   http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i49

On 2006/12/13, at 2:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at RFC2616, Section 13.5.1 which currently ends with  
> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.5.1>):
>
>    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header,
>    (section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later).
>
> Sorry?
>
> My first idea was that the comma was just in the wrong place,  
> making it
>
>    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
>    (section 14.10), to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later).
>
> But of course that still doesn't make any sense.
>
> So I looked at RFC2068, Section 13.5.1 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/ 
> rfc2068#section-13.5.1>) and that one says:
>
>    Hop-by-hop headers introduced in future versions of HTTP MUST be
>    listed in a Connection header, as described in section 14.10.
>
> Now that makes sense, and it seems that RFC2616 was broken when  
> somebody tried to rewrite that sentence.
>
> Proposal: just say...:
>
>    Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header
>    (Section 14.10).
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

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