Subject: [Last-Call] Your Discuss on draft-crocker-inreply-react

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:38:59 -0800

Now that IETF Week is over...

The concern you expressed in your Discuss on draft-crocker-inreply-react:

> Discuss (2021-02-24 for -08)
> 
> I thought you were going to clean up whether the Content-Disposition was
> "React" or "Reaction" based on the gen-art review, but the document still seems
> internally inconsistent about it.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zun860KMrKdwqyKSWbrvWSPMuYM/
> indicates that "React" was the intent, but Sections 2 and 4.1 still use
> "Reaction", while the IANA Considerations register "React".  Section 3
> uses lowercase "reaction" in the context of a "Content-Disposition"
> header field as well.  Section 7 mentions a "Reaction capability".

was resolved some version(s) ago.

If you still have a concern about the draft's use of its label, please 
let me know.  Otherwise it would be nice to let the draft finally 
profess to the RFC Editor.

Thanks.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:44:49 -0800

Hi Dave,

> Now that IETF Week is over...

Thanks for waiting until after the IETF week to send the reminder.
(I was mindful that this document was not at risk of becoming ineligible
for approval due to ADs cycling off the IESG when prioritizing what to
spend time on during the week.)
> profess to the RFC Editor.

That concern is resolved, thanks.
I have cleared my Discuss.

-Ben

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:57:52 -0800

> I have cleared my Discuss.

Thanks!

d/