Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-10

Hi Julian,

Not Really, certainly not with an editorial eye! But I have been grokking at the document quite a bit, for an I-D that will use QUERY. 


Since I already have your attention, I can check with you on a few other minor/pedantic things, and do a quick editorial pass while I am at it (I probably should have done this earlier and better, apologies!):

* In section 3, para 2, it says, "Parameters, if any, are mapped to Parameters of type String." Later in para 7 it says, "The only allowed format for parameters is String". 

* Some instances of Accept-Query in section 3 are quoted and others are not. The practice, say, in RFC9110 is to quote the first instance of a term in the first paragraph under a heading and no others. My own instinct would be to wrap all instances as <tt>Accept-Query</tt> as this reads better in HTML, but certainly it is not the practice. 

* I would also prefer not to write "Accept-Query's value" but say "Value of the Accept-Query field" instead, but again, it is not really a nit.
* In Section 2, last paragraph and Section 2.2, Status Codes are not referenced, unlike most other places in the document.
* You might like to cross-reference "safe" and "idempotent" with RFC9110, say, in section 2.
* The document has almost no internal cross-linking of terms. I use kramdown-rfc, so I get it almost for free. Not sure at what stage this is done?
* Shouldn't the new examples in the appendix demonstrating a specific feature also have links back to the relevant sections?
* Is it intentional that in most examples in the appendix, you do not set an Accept-Query response header? I understand it is optional, but it might signal a good practice to be seen setting it. 


BR/Rahul

On Friday, May 16th, 2025 at 12:17 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 16.05.2025 00:27, Rahul Gupta wrote:
> 

> > Please look at issue 3090 as well, which is editorial.
> > 

> > BR/Rahul
> 

> 

> Oh, thanks for checking.
> 

> Asking for a friend: did you do a systematic check?
> 

> Best regards, Julian