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

Rahul,

thanks a lot - it's good to fix these things early (for some value of 
"early").

-> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/3101

Am 16.05.2025 um 15:05 schrieb Rahul Gupta:
> * 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".

Fixed.

> * 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.

The last part is a matter of taste, but I'm ready to be convinced 
otherwise (feedback appreciated).

> * 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.

Fixed.

> * In Section 2, last paragraph and Section 2.2, Status Codes are not referenced, unlike most other places in the document.

Fixed.

> * You might like to cross-reference "safe" and "idempotent" with RFC9110, say, in section 2.

Fixed.

> * 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?

This can get very noisy and somewhat interrupts the flow; so I would not 
want to do it too much.

> * Shouldn't the new examples in the appendix demonstrating a specific feature also have links back to the relevant sections?

Done in some cases.

> * 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.

Well, there's one. The idea is not to distract from what the example is 
about.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2025 20:19:03 UTC