Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9110 (9162)

["Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]>]

REJECT

OWS (optional whitespace) does not change the field value, by definition.

....Roy


> On Sep 2, 2026, at 11:59 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110,
> "HTTP Semantics"
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9162/
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Julian Shepherd <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section 5.2 says:
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> When a field name is repeated within a section, its combined
>   field value consists of the list of corresponding field line values
>   within that section, concatenated in order, with each field line
>   value separated by a comma.
> 
>   For example, this section:
> 
>   Example-Field: Foo, Bar
>   Example-Field: Baz
> 
>   contains two field lines, both with the field name "Example-Field".
>   The first field line has a field line value of "Foo, Bar", while the
>   second field line value is "Baz".  The field value for "Example-
>   Field" is the list "Foo, Bar, Baz".
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> When a field name is repeated within a section, its combined
>   field value consists of the list of corresponding field line values
>   within that section, concatenated in order, with each field line
>   value separated by a comma SP (", ").
> 
>   For example, this section:
> 
>   Example-Field: Foo, Bar
>   Example-Field: Baz
> 
>   contains two field lines, both with the field name "Example-Field".
>   The first field line has a field line value of "Foo, Bar", while the
>   second field line value is "Baz".  The field value for "Example-
>   Field" is the list "Foo, Bar, Baz".
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The original text says, "with each field line value separated by a comma", but in the example, it shows the field line values being separated by a comma SP (", ") instead of just a comma (","). Hence, either the given definition of "combined field value" is incorrect, or the example intended to demonstrate it is incorrect.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : HTTP Semantics
> Publication Date    : June 2022
> Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
> Category            : Internet Standard
> Source              : httpbis (wit)
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>