Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#537 closed editorial (wontfix)

OWS vs optional

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 26
Component: p1-messaging Severity: In IESG Evaluation
Keywords: Cc:


Sean Turner:

In reference to OWS in the ABNF, isn't the correct ABNF syntax to include optional fields in [] - See s3.8 of RFC 5234? Sure the text says it's optional but aren't you mixing formal syntax and informal text. I guess this is sometimes done in ABNF for omitting fields but if you've got a mechanism to indicate a field is optional I don't understand why you're not using it.

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Severity changed from In WG Last Call to In IESG Evaluation

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

OWS = *( SP / HTAB )

So it can be empty anyway.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.