Re: [core] MULTIPART-CT: A few editorial comments

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
 
>Sorry for missing your comments.
>
> I guess we have two possible paths to get them in:
>  1. If the IESG processing triggers a new review, we will be addressing your comments in the updated draft;
>  2. Otherwise, being purely editorial, these can be fixed by the RFC editor.
> 
> (I have filed https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=6aecc09b-363fd0f3-6aec8000-8691b328a8b8-b9a95f4e7bf9b641&q=1&u=https://github.com/core-wg/multipart-ct/issues/25 to track them.)

Either new review or RFC editor is fine with me - whatever is more convenient for you :)

However, I'd like people to verify that my understanding in comment Q2 is correct.

Regards,

Christer 



From: core <[e-mail]> on behalf of Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 21:40
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [core] MULTIPART-CT: A few editorial comments
 
Hi,
 
Unless I have missed it, I would appreciate if the issues below could be addressed. They should only be editorial.
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
Lähettäjä: core <[e-mail]> Puolesta Christer Holmberg
Lähetetty: tiistai 23. heinäkuuta 2019 17.53
Vastaanottaja: [e-mail]
Aihe: [core] MULTIPART-CT: A few editorial comments
 
Hi,
 
A few minor editorial comments on draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03:
 
(I haven’t read the IESG review comments, so my apologies if someone has already raised these comments)
 
---
 
Q1:
 
The Introduction says talks about “request or response body’.
 
However, when looking in RFC 7252, I don’t find ‘body’ anywhere.
 
I assume that ‘body’ refers to what RFC 7252 calls ‘payload’. If so, I suggest aligning the terminology.
 
(For some reason section 10.2.3 of RFC 7252 does use ‘message-body’, without any explanation or reference, but I guess that is just an error)
 
---
 
Q2:
 
Related to Q1, the text says:
 
   “can be used to combine representations of zero or more different media types into a single message”
 
I assume it means ‘single message payload’? Because, you are not combing other parts (Codes, Tokens etc) of the message, are you?
 
I think it would be more clear if you said ‘combine multiple representations, each using the same or different media types, into a single message payload’.
 
---
 
Q3: The draft uses both ‘media type’ and ‘media-type’. RFC 7252 uses ‘media type’ (there is one instance of ‘media-type’, though), so maybe align with that?
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.