Hi Dave, On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:38:59AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Now that IETF Week is over... Thanks for waiting until after the IETF week to send the reminder. (I was mindful that this document was not at risk of becoming ineligible for approval due to ADs cycling off the IESG when prioritizing what to spend time on during the week.) > > The concern you expressed in your Discuss on draft-crocker-inreply-react: > > > Discuss (2021-02-24 for -08) > > > > I thought you were going to clean up whether the Content-Disposition was > > "React" or "Reaction" based on the gen-art review, but the document still seems > > internally inconsistent about it. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zun860KMrKdwqyKSWbrvWSPMuYM/ > > indicates that "React" was the intent, but Sections 2 and 4.1 still use > > "Reaction", while the IANA Considerations register "React". Section 3 > > uses lowercase "reaction" in the context of a "Content-Disposition" > > header field as well. Section 7 mentions a "Reaction capability". > > was resolved some version(s) ago. > > > If you still have a concern about the draft's use of its label, please > let me know. Otherwise it would be nice to let the draft finally > profess to the RFC Editor. That concern is resolved, thanks. I have cleared my Discuss. -Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
