Subject: Accepting pre-existing errata resolutions

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:56:20 +1100

Prior to this WG starting up, there was an HTTP errata list  
maintained at <http://skrb.org/ietf/http_errata.html>.

The issues against RFC2616 listed there are reflected as i1 to i18 in  
the current list <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/ 
issues/>.

We've all been looking at them a while, but please have one more look  
through and make sure you're comfortable with the resolutions  
proposed; if I don't hear anything in the next two weeks, I think  
we'll have consensus on those resolutions*, and can move on.

Cheers,

* I'm primarily talking about the resolutions of the "design" issues  
-- i.e., those requiring some interpretation of the spec. Some of  
them may be overridden by later updates (e.g., i11 is probably going  
to be blown away by an updated reference to RFC3986); my interest for  
now is getting these out of the way, so don't worry about that for now.

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

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:25:26 +0100

>we'll have consensus on those resolutions*, and can move on.

There are a couple of errors, but they'll probably get fixed automa-
tically (e.g., RFC 2616 does not actually reference RFC 4288 as the
errata says, and the HTTP-Version grammar, if I recall correctly, as
specified there allows LWS in undesired places); as subsequent dis-
cussion has shown, there is probably no consensus on i5 (Via). I do
not agree with the i16 resolution ("identity") in that I think the
specification needs to discuss how to handle messages that use it
(e.g., Opera will include it in its TE header). I will open an issue
for that. Other than this seems fine.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/