Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04
review-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04-genart-lc-resnick-2022-10-27-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2022-11-03 | |
Requested | 2022-10-20 | |
Authors | Mark Nottingham , Erik Wilde , Sanjay Dalal | |
I-D last updated | 2022-10-27 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Pete Resnick
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -04 by Jean Mahoney (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Deb Cooley (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Pete Resnick |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rwof5ZAvK9MM0IPKUX2lrIFJP8c | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2022-10-27 |
review-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04-genart-lc-resnick-2022-10-27-00
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.