search

ietf-wg-masque / draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp

Other
29 stars 9 forks source link

RFC Editor comment 5 #186

Closed LPardue closed 2 years ago

LPardue commented 2 years ago

Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently.

a) Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.

HTTP CONNECT method vs. CONNECT (should method follow?)

HTTP Extended CONNECT vs. Extended CONNECT

"connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token vs. "connect-udp" upgrade token

Context ID vs. context ID (perhaps the field name is capped; then maybe add "field"?)

b) We have updated to use the form on the right for the few occurrences of the form on the left. Please let us know any objections.

URI template / URI Template target_host / "target_host" UDP Proxying request streams / UDP proxying request streams

c) We see header field names in double quotes. Please review the following "field" names to ensure double quotes are not necessary.

HTTP Datagram Payload field Context ID field Quarter Stream ID field

DavidSchinazi commented 2 years ago

HTTP CONNECT method vs. CONNECT (should method follow?)

There's one instance in the Intro where Unlike CONNECT, should be Unlike the HTTP CONNECT method. but everything else is fine

HTTP Extended CONNECT vs. Extended CONNECT

Extended CONNECT is fine

"connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token vs. "connect-udp" upgrade token

upgrade token sounds best as it matches RFC 9110

Context ID vs. context ID (perhaps the field name is capped; then maybe add "field"?)

context ID for the concept, Context ID for the field. Adding field where relevant sounds good.

b) that's fine

c) We see header field names in double quotes. Please review the following "field" names to ensure double quotes are not necessary.

As per the HTTP style guide, HTTP header field names need quotes for the first time they're mentioned than not. Other field names don't need quotes.