![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](https://www.ietf.org/images/ietflogotrans.gif)
#137 closed editorial (incorporated)
duplicate ABNF for Reason-Phrase
| Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | julian.reschke@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 13 |
| Component: | p2-semantics | Severity: | Active WG Document |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
The ABNF for Reason-Phrase currently appears both in P1 and P2.
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 13
- Owner set to julian.reschke@…
- Priority set to normal
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by julian.reschke@…
From [1137]:
apply editorial improvements suggested by Ben Niven-Jenkins in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JanMar/0164.html>, also avoid the word "required" when it's not a keyword (see #137)
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…
- Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
The same applies to Status-Code.
Both need to be defined in Part 1 so that generic message parsing is specified.
Should we remove the grammar from Part 2? Note that the definitions for Reason-Phrase are identical, while Status-Code differs in that Part 2 enumerates the codes defined in the spec. It seems to me that we should get rid of that enumeration and just say "3DIGIT" in the grammar.