5.2 (https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#rfc.section.5.2):
"When a field name is only present once in a section, the combined field value for that field consists of the corresponding field line value. 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 non-empty field line value separated by a comma."
This seems to be a change from RFC 7230, which says in 3.2.2 (https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.3.2.2):
"A recipient MAY combine multiple header fields with the same field name into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field value to the combined field value in order, separated by a comma."
So there's a difference with respect to empty field line values.
Was this change intentional? In that case it needs to be list as change.
I'm asking because RFC 8941 currently is aligned with RFC 7230.
5.2 (https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#rfc.section.5.2):
"When a field name is only present once in a section, the combined field value for that field consists of the corresponding field line value. 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 non-empty field line value separated by a comma."
This seems to be a change from RFC 7230, which says in 3.2.2 (https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.3.2.2):
"A recipient MAY combine multiple header fields with the same field name into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field value to the combined field value in order, separated by a comma."
So there's a difference with respect to empty field line values.
Was this change intentional? In that case it needs to be list as change.
I'm asking because RFC 8941 currently is aligned with RFC 7230.