Hi Paul, Thanks for the review; responses below -- > On 25 Feb 2025, at 4:36 am, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1) NIT: Lack of normative language for syntax > > I gather this document intends to normatively specify some of the syntax of HTTP requests and responses. Yet the specification fails to use normative language. For instance, consider the following sentence from section 2: > > "The Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header is a List of Strings [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]." > > To clearly be normative, I would expect this to be stated as: > > "The Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header MUST be a List of Strings [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]." > > This problem is present in sections 2 and 3, and also in the reference [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]. We avoid that style of requirement, because it doesn't make clear who the requirement applies to, or how to handle failures. Structured fields requires (in section 1.2) use of specific algorithms that address that shortcoming. > 2) NIT: Typo > > In section 2.1: > > s/The both/They both/ Already fixed. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
