Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5536 (1979)

[Julien ÉLIE <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alfred,

> Rationale:
>  The whole RFC is precise in its use of the IETF standard terminology
>  as explained in Section 2.1.  This phrase is an exception; here as
>  well "header" should be "header field".

Is it really the case?

Section 2.1 of RFC 5536:

   This document follows the
   terminology in Section 2 of [RFC5322] in using the terms "line",
   "header field", "header field name", "header field body"

Section 2 of RFC 5322:

   Header fields are lines beginning with a field name, followed by a
   colon (":"), followed by a field body, and terminated by CRLF.



But a header field body in RFC 5536 seems to refer to what follows the
first SP of a header field body in RFC 5322.
See Section 2.2 of RFC 5536:

   o  All agents MUST generate header fields so that at least one space
      immediately follows the ':' separating the header field name and
      the header field body

It is not the IETF standard terminology you mention in your rationale.



Hmm...  And I now wonder how the wording you suggest in your erratum 1980
for RFC 5537 should be like...
For instance, Section 5.3 of RFC 5537:

    The syntax of its Control header field is:

         control-command     =/ Cancel-command
         Cancel-command      = "cancel" Cancel-arguments
         Cancel-arguments    = 1*WSP msg-id

And Section 3.2.3 of RFC 5536 gives:

   control         =  "Control:" SP *WSP control-command *WSP CRLF
   control-command =  verb *( 1*WSP argument )
   verb            =  token
   argument        =  1*( %x21-7E )


So in RFC 5537, it is not really the header field.  And not really
the header field body.  So the fix in erratum 1980 might not be correct...
Maybe it is better to leave the global "header field" terminology...

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Ne parlez jamais de vous, ni en bien, car on ne vous
  croirait pas, ni en mal car on ne vous croirait que trop. » (Confucius)