Subject: Bad link in RFC 7234

From: Will Sargent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:09:31 -0700

In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2

 "heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit freshness
 whose status codes are defined as cacheable by default (see Section
 6.1 of [RFC7231])"

The link marking "Section 6.1" has a URL of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-6.1 -- it should be
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.1 instead.

Will.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:25:07 -0400

This is a problem with the tools.ietf.org rfcmarkup tool and nothing to
do with the RFC itself.

Comments on that should probably be directed to [email-masked].

    Tony Hansen

On 4/29/15 4:09 PM, Will Sargent wrote:
> The link marking "Section 6.1" has a URL
> of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-6.1 -- it should
> be https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.1 instead.
>
> Will.
>

---

From: Will Sargent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:48:29 -0700

I think perhaps the reason it's broken is because it's defined as two
distinct links, which results in the markup tool being confused.

In other cases, you can see links are defined as "Section 2.3 of [RFC7232]"
covering the entire text, which perhaps the tool is better able to
understand.

---

From: Will Sargent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:52:40 -0700

Same problem here:

   The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-7.1.1.1>
   7.1.1.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-7.1.1.1> of
[RFC7231 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231>].

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Will Sargent <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> In other cases, you can see links are defined as "Section 2.3 of
> [RFC7232]" covering the entire text, which perhaps the tool is better able
> to understand.
>