Hi Carsten, > On 2 Nov 2022, at 9:32 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > # Major: > > There seems to be an expectation that IANA will make > https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#foo resolvable. > I'm not sure IANA is in a position to do this today. Tracking in: https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/issues/62 > Section 5.2: The cited [RFC8126] Section 4.5 is "Expert Review", but > the text says "Specification Required”. Fixed in: https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/commit/675c89927 > # Minor: > > The specification is a bit wobbly on whether type URIs should be > resolvable -- it explains the possibility, immediately explains an > evolvability problem with non-resolvable type URIs, and then later has > a SHOULD for being resolvable. Will take a look. Tracking in: https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/issues/63 > Appendix A has a data definition for the JSON form in the current > json-schema.org language version, but none in CDDL (RFC 8610). > I propose adding the CDDL in the same spirit (informative definition), > see PR#59 [2]. I don't think I can take this without some WG discussion. CDDL is not really used by the HTTP API community, so this feels more like advocacy than I'm comfortable with. > # Nits: > > -- 3.1.1: > Non-resolvable URIs ought not be used when there is some future > possibility that it might become desirable to do so. > > To this non-native speaker, "to do so" points nowhere (well, actually > to using them, but that is a paradox then). > What is probably meant is: > > Non-resolvable URIs ought not be used when there is some future > possibility that it might become desirable to be able to resolve > the URIs. Recorded as <https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/issues/61>. Thanks! -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
