Subject: Strange "downref" to RFC2068 in description of 304 (new Issue 126)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:20:36 +0200

Just added... (<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/126>):

Part 4, Section 4.1:

"If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients 
add their own Date to any response received without one (as already 
specified by [RFC2068], Section 14.19), caches will operate correctly."

RFC2068, Section 14.19 is the definition of the Date header. Why does 
RFC2616 refer to RFC2068 instead to itself?

Proposal to reference Part 1, Section 8.3 instead.

(Historical note: that statement apparently was added in 
draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-08)

BR, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:25:36 +0200

Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> ...

Seems that this issue is related to proposed text in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1997JanApr/0884.html>, 
which was added too verbatim to the RFC2068bis==RFC2616.

BR, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:33:44 +0200

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> tis 2008-08-05 klockan 22:25 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...
> Seems so indeed.
> And as it's clear what really should be referenced (internal reference
> to Date) i'd say it's an editorial issue.

Yes, I went ahead and fixed it in 
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/306>.

BR, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:34:10 +0200

Seems so indeed.

Regards
Henrik