Hi Stewart, Thanks for the review. Responses below.
> Minor issues: > I found the IANA considerations confusing. Specifically it looks like > Section 4.1 refers to > https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml > although it does not say so in so many words. It says > This specification updates the Message Header registry entry for "Link" in > HTTP [RFC3864] to refer to this document. Are you suggesting that it be updated to say "Permanent Message Header Field Names registry", or something else? > Assuming that to be the case the IANA text in section 4.1 (which copies the > text from RFC5688) does not line up column by column with the text in the > registry. I assume that > [RFC&rfc.number;] means [This RFC], Yes; already fixed in source. > but do not see where Author/Change control fits in the registry. It's required by the registration template in RFC3864. > Nits/editorial comments: > > In the intro and the abstract the text "a model for indicate the > relationships" is not good grammar. Already fixed in source. Thanks again! -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
