Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)

Julien =C3=89LIE <[email protected]> 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 para=
graph
> 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.

--=20
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>