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

Am 18.05.2025 um 14:13 schrieb Rahul Gupta:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> 
> Thanks for looking into my comments. A few residual fixes/comments:
> 
> * In B.11, it should say:
>      * Martin Thomson instead of martinthomson to be consistent with other names
>      * Address most *of* Rahul Gupta's additional feedback (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/3101) (link is to a GitHub Issue not PR "/pull/")

That doensn't matter, as this Appendix will not be published anyway.

> ..
>>> * 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.
> 
> Unless I am misunderstanding the context, I was pointing out the repetition between para 2 and 7, which still remains. Now, with the change, the two statements are inconsistent about String and Token.

Yes, I'll fix the redundancy, but I don't think they are inconsistent 
right now.

> Now that I am reading it again, I feel paragraph 2 can be rephrased to be more clear: "... containing the media range value without parameters. Parameters, if any, are mapped to Parameters of type String." The impression it created (when I was not reading carefully) is that media ranges value are without parameters, and then immediately later it can have parameters. I had to reread the text a few times to understand!
> ...
>>> * 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.

I did not on purpose in order to avoid too many references.

 > ...
>>> * 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.
> 
> Maybe you can say something to the effect of "The Content-Length and Accept-Query (except in A.3) fields have been omitted for brevity".
 > ...


yes, I can do that.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 18 May 2025 19:21:38 UTC