[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)
Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Maybe I should re-ask, before the verification takes place...
> Didn't the mails I sent for errata 1979, 1980 and 1982 reach you?
They did, yes.
>> Given this, I agree with all the changes you propose and think the
>> errata should be verified in its entirety.
> If the erratum is to be verified, be sure to also include the fourth paragraph
> of Section 3.4. It should also be amended:
> predating this specification do not add an Injection-Date header.
> "field" is missing.
I agree with this change. I'm not sure how this process works -- whether
it's better to amend the existing errata or add another one.
> Another thing: why is it "header field value" and not "header field
> body"? RFCs 5322 and 5536 define "header field body" but not "header
> field value". Where is the terminology drawn?
This is a good point that I didn't check originally. It does sound like
header field body might be a better term to use.
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>