Nevermind, I see it's already backmerged. Colm.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 PM Colm O hEigeartaigh <cohei...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > I want to call a vote on 3.1.x today if possible - can you backmerge this > fix? > > Colm. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:39 PM Dennis Kieselhorst <d...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not >> comply >> > to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a >> errata >> > for RFC-2392* >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392 >> > >> > This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text: >> > >> > >> > I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI >> > encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has >> not >> > limitation to be encoded. >> > >> > Do you agree with my interpretation? >> > If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a >> rollback the >> > changes done with CXF-7317 >> >> I fully agree, sorry for that, I had just taken a look at the example and >> then merged the PR. I just reverted the changes and put a note on >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 and >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-4064. Will merge it to 3.1.x and >> 3.2.x branch later today... >> >> Regards >> Dennis >> >> >> > > -- > Colm O hEigeartaigh > > Talend Community Coder > http://coders.talend.com > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
