LGTM, but as I went to integrate this, I realised that this is overcome by events; separately, we've agreed to remove the header field, so this text is no longer present :)
Cheers, > On 15 Feb 2023, at 1:27 am, Erik Wilde <erik.wi...@dret.net> wrote: > > hello mark. > > On 2023-02-15 05:08, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I like the suggestion below; anyone else have an issue with incorporating it? >>>> 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. > > looks good to me. but what about replacing "Structured Type" (which is a term > that's never used in that spec) with "Structured Data Type (see Section 3 of > [STRUCTURED-FIELDS])"? > > thanks and cheers, > > dret. > > -- > Erik Wilde | mailto:erik.wi...@dret.net | > | https://youtube.com/ErikWilde | > > -- > httpapi mailing list > http...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
