Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04
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.