Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Pete,

I like the suggestion below; anyone else have an issue with incorporating it?

Cheers,

> 
>> On Oct 28, 2022, at 01:13, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux