--On Saturday, April 24, 2021 18:33 -0500 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 Apr 2021, at 17:38, John C Klensin wrote: > >> --On Saturday, April 24, 2021 14:33 -0700 Pete Resnick via >> Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Reviewer: Pete Resnick >>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>> >>> 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. >>> ... >> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> In section 4.3: >>> >>> In several response code definitions: >>> >>> The token used MUST be any token that was received in a >>> request using the same Request-Tag. >>> >>> That doesn't really parse well. I think you either mean "The >>> token used MUST be a token" or you mean "The token used can >>> be any token". >> >> If the first meaning is intended, isn't that tautologically >> true? If the token used is not a token, what would it be? > > You need to put it in the context of the example give. It > could be: > > The token used MUST be a token that was received in a > request using the same Request-Tag. > > which means it can't be a token with a different Request-Tag, > or it could be: > > The token used can be any token that was received in a > request using the same Request-Tag. > > which means that there might be different tokens that use the > same Request-Tag, but you can use any of them. Ack. Thanks. john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
