Document: draft-lilly-field-specification-03.txt
Review: Michael A. Patton
Date: 11 maj 2005 
----------------

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC


I did have a couple of suggestions that I think could improve the
document.  These could easily be done in final RFC prep and should not
slow the document down...



In section 4.1.1 I'd suggest splitting into two paragraphs.  I think
it would be clearer.  Here's my suggestion, with some additional minor
cleanup:

   Terms related to the Internet Message Format are defined in
   [N2.RFC2822].  Authors specifying extension header fields should
   use the same terms in the same manner in order to provide clarity
   and avoid confusion.  For example, a "header" is comprised of
   "header fields", each of which has a "field name" and usually has a
   "field body".  Each message may have more than one "header", viz. a
   message header and one or more MIME-part [N4.RFC2046] headers.

   For example, a message has a message header which contains a Date
   header field (i.e. a field with field name "Date").  However, there
   is no "Date header".  Use of such non-standard terms is likely to
   lead to confusion, possibly resulting in interoperability failures
   of implementations.

I would expand the simple sentence at the start of 4.1.2 to summarize
the difference between what you're using these two terms for.  I
understand it, I just think the document would read clearer with a
little more description to lead into this.

I think that the considerations of Appendix A will be moot in the RFC,
and thus it could also be removed as Appendix B is noted.