Link: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/47
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/4561BFCF.1040404@gmx.de
Component: p1-messaging
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.
Proposal: "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC1036 date format [12] and lacks a four-digit year."
Fixed in [82]
Not sure it's ok to drop RFC1036 from the references section...
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.