LGTM, but as I went to integrate this, I realised that this is overcome by events; separately, we've agreed to remove the header field, so this text is no longer present :) Cheers, > On 15 Feb 2023, at 1:27 am, Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > hello mark. > > On 2023-02-15 05:08, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I like the suggestion below; anyone else have an issue with incorporating it? >>>> 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. > > looks good to me. but what about replacing "Structured Type" (which is a term that's never used in that spec) with "Structured Data Type (see Section 3 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS])"? > > thanks and cheers, > > dret. > > -- > Erik Wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx | > | https://youtube.com/ErikWilde | > > -- > httpapi mailing list > httpapi@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
