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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Pete, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On Oct 28, 2022, at 01:13, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2022-10-27
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-03
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready to go; one comment below.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art