Subject: [httpwg/http-extensions] Give us something to hang onto (#267)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:40:42 -0800

In working on RFC5988bis, I'm referring to this spec, and finding it's difficult to talk about the concepts, because so much has been pared back.

In particular:

* [ ] There isn't any prose reference to the "*" form of the attribute name; it only occurs in examples. One would assume that this is the normative way to invoke this encoding, but it isn't specified.
* [ ] A distinct name for the encoding would help; right now, the best I can do is "the encoding specified in RFC5987bis".
* [ ] The examples of how to use this in header specifications needs to be deeper.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/267