Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)

RFC Errata System <[email protected]> writes:

> Notes
> -----
> Rationale:
>   Contrary to its companion document, RFC 5536, this RFC mixes precise
>   IETF terminology for protocol elements and colloquial abuse of it in
>   various places.  For clarity and consistency, it should also
>   inequivocally make use of the standard terminology; the fields
>   of the "header" that a protocol layer or sub-layer adds to its
>   payload are "header fields", not "headers" in itself.

Argh, I thought I caught all of these.  I'm sorry about that.  The
corrections (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), and (k) are correct.

>   Similarly, denoting as "header field" a "header field value" is
>   confusing -- items (e), (f), (g), (i), and (j) above.

I don't understand the rationale for this change.  I believe the current
text for those items is already correct and this change should not be
necessary.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>