Please let us know if any changes are needed for the following (comment 36)

[mnot]

Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
following:

a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document.
We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any objections.

flow control credit / flow-control credit
(We also changed "flow control signal" to "flow-control signal".)

flow control window (1 instance in Section 5.2.3) /
flow-control window (approx. 45 instances)

HTTP 1.1 (1 instance) / HTTP/1.1 (22 instances)

"Promised Stream ID" field / Promised Stream ID field
(There was only one quoted field name in this document.)

stream identifier field (6 instances) /
Stream Identifier field (10 instances)

Upgrade token / upgrade token (per RFC 7540 and companion
document RFC 9110)

b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
document. Please let us know which form is preferred.

closed stream (or closed streams) (5 instances) /
"closed" stream (1 instance)

idle stream (5 instances) / "idle" streams (1 instance)

reserved stream (or reserved streams) (4 instances) /
"reserved" streams (1 instance)

[martinthomson]

For stream states, I think we have a convention. We talk about a stream in the "idle" state or we talk about an idle stream. I think that's OK.

@Lukasa, you will have to double check the pull request I have for this as there were a few inconsistencies about our use of "reserved". These carry over from the previous version and were not very precise.