Original text:
HpkeConfig hpke-config: "application/dap-hpke-config" <del> Report upload-request: "message/dap-report" </del>  <del> AggregateInitializeReq collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate- </del>  initialize-req" <del> AggregateInitializeResp collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate- </del>  initialize-resp" <del> AggregateContinueReq collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate- </del>  continue-req" <del> AggregateContinueResp collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate- </del>  continue-resp" <del> AggregateShareReq collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate-share-req" </del>  <del> AggregateShareResp collect-flow: "message/dap-aggregate-share- </del>  resp" <del> CollectReq collect-flow: "message/dap-collect-req" </del>  <del> CollectResp collect-flow: "message/dap-collect-resp" </del>  The definition for each media type is in the following subsections.

Reviewer comments:
(opinionatedly: please see discussion on that issue)
Currently, DAP uses the following media types (defined in section 7.1): Note that the first uses the top-level type, while the remainder use the top-level type. For consistency, I suggest we use the same top-level type for all messages. Which type is more appropriate? Per : is for "either uninterpreted binary data or information to be processed by an application" is for "an encapsulated message"; all of the motivating examples (see section 5.2) are around encaspulating one message format inside another, or fragmenting a message into multiple chunks. provides further guidance that "multipart and message are composite types; that is, they provide a means of encapsulating zero or more objects, each one a separate media type." Given that DAP messages are not a method of encapsulating a message of a different type, I suggest that is the more appropriate top-level type to use. This is also supported by the rather large number of media types vs the relatively tiny number of media types in . (this issue fell out of discussion on URL)
Agreed, seems better.
The types were chosen in PR on a tentative basis, and marked with "OPEN ISSUE: Solicit review of these allocations from domain experts." Based on the encapsulation reasoning, I agree that be most appropriate for our media types.
As a non-HTTP expert, I agree with the rationale. Thanks, NAME based on the text quoted by NAME in the linked issue. It would be great to get feedback from folks who have more experience working on HTTP-based applications.

Revised text:
HpkeConfig hpke-config: "application/dap-hpke-config"  <ins> Report upload-request: "application/dap-report" </ins>  <ins> AggregateInitializeReq collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate- </ins> initialize-req"  <ins> AggregateInitializeResp collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate- </ins> initialize-resp"  <ins> AggregateContinueReq collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate- </ins> continue-req"  <ins> AggregateContinueResp collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate- </ins> continue-resp"  <ins> AggregateShareReq collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate-share- req" </ins>  <ins> AggregateShareResp collect-flow: "application/dap-aggregate-share- </ins> resp"  <ins> CollectReq collect-flow: "application/dap-collect-req" </ins>  <ins> CollectResp collect-flow: "application/dap-collect-resp" </ins> The definition for each media type is in the following subsections.