Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add check for preferred format of Content Type (DON'T MERGE YET) #31

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: policies-256-9999
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

EskoDijk
Copy link
Collaborator

fix #22

Note: for clarity this shows the diff w.r.t. Marco's recent PR.
Before merging, this needs to be updated to go into the main branch!

@EskoDijk
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Note: the "make" process was not done yet to check the changes - I'm on a laptop without the toolchain now.

Copy link
Member

@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks Esko!

## Preferred Format for the Content Type Field {#preferred-format}

This section defines the preferred string format for including a requested Content Type into the CoAP Content-Formats registry.
During the review procedure, the Designated Expert(s) or IANA may rewrite a requested Content Type to this preferred string format prior to approval.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe

"During the review process, the Designated Expert(s) or IANA may rewrite a requested Content Type into this preferred string format before approval."

draft-ietf-core-cf-reg-update.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@thomas-fossati
Copy link
Member

thomas-fossati commented Jan 30, 2025

Note: the "make" process was not done yet to check the changes - I'm on a laptop without the toolchain now.

I ran make locally and it works.
The CI is also happy.

@thomas-fossati
Copy link
Member

Question: Is it worth addressing #23 in this PR too?

@thomas-fossati
Copy link
Member

Question: Is it worth addressing #23 in this PR too?

The question has been implicitly answered by @EskoDijk's #32 😄

Signed-off-by: Thomas Fossati <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add sentence to explain both quoted/non-quoted parameters can be registered in media type?
2 participants