Opened 12 years ago

Closed 12 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#47 closed editorial (fixed)

inconsistency in date format explanation

Reported by: mnot@… Owned by:
Priority: Milestone: 01
Component: p1-messaging Severity:
Keywords: Cc:

Description

In Section 3.3.1, RFC2616 says:

"The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC 850 [12] date format and lacks a four-digit year."

However, [12] refers to RFC1036, which obsoletes RFC850.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…

Proposal: "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC1036 date format [12] and lacks a four-digit year."

comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…

  • Component set to messaging
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

Fixed in [82]

comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Not sure it's ok to drop RFC1036 from the references section...

comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by fielding@…

I am sure. RFC 1036 does not define the date format being described because the format was obsolete by then. That is why it is the rfc850 format as opposed to the netnews format. A pointer to 1036 is worse than meaningless. In any case, these are just informative references.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.