[httpapi] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Pete Resnick for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rwof5ZAvK9MM0IPKUX2lrIFJP8c)

## Comments

### Section 4.2, paragraph 3
```
     When evaluating requests, the Expert(s) should consider community
     feedback, how well-defined the problem type is, and this
     specification's requirements.
```
It's called "expert review" and not "community review" for a reason, because
it's the expert's call. If you want community review, the registration policy
should be "RFC Required" or "IETF Review"...

### Missing references

No reference entries found for: `[RFC3986]`, `[rfc7807]`, and `[RFC7231]`.

### Uncited references

Document obsoletes `RFC7807`, but does not cite it as a reference.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 3
```
-    and deployment-specific values are not registrable.  Specification
+    and deployment-specific values are not registerable.  Specification
+                                                 +
```

### Uncited references

Uncited references: `[UTF8]`.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool