Hi Pete, Thanks for the review. Seems reasonable; we'll revisit this wording. I've recorded this at: https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/issues/57
Cheers, > On 27 Oct 2022, at 11:13 pm, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2022-10-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-03 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready to go; one comment below. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > This paragraph in section 4 struck me oddly: > > An extension member (see Section 3.2) MAY occur in the Problem field > if its name is compatible with the syntax of Dictionary keys (see > Section 3.2 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]) and if the defining problem type > specifies a Structured Type to serialize the value into. > > That almost sounds like what you want to say is: > > If an extension member (see Section 3.2) occurs in the Problem field, > its name MUST be compatible with the syntax of Dictionary keys (see > Section 3.2 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]) and the defining problem type > MUST specify a Structured Type to serialize the value into. > > I'm curious if you are making a normative statement that would get lost in the > current form. But I'm not sure what the high-order bit here is, so I leave it > to you. > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
