Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)

Hi Russ,

Maybe I should re-ask, before the verification takes place...
Didn't the mails I sent for errata 1979, 1980 and 1982 reach you?


> Given this, I agree with all the changes you propose and think the erra=
ta
> should be verified in its entirety.

If the erratum is to be verified, be sure to also include the fourth para=
graph
of Section 3.4.  It should also be amended:

    predating this specification do not add an Injection-Date header.

"field" is missing.


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?

--=20
Julien =C3=89LIE

=C2=AB Plus un ordinateur poss=C3=A8de de RAM, plus vite il peut g=C3=A9n=
=C3=A9rer
  un message d'erreur. =C2=BB