Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-10

Hi Murray,

thanks for the review! +Manger, James who is the current DE for dig-alg

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 11:53, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:39 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Section 2 [and 3]:
>>>
>>> * I suggest including a forward reference to the appendices, where examples of replies including multiple hashes can be found.
>> [..] In each of these sections, [..we..] immediately give an example of a field containing sha-256 and sha-512.
> I think my suggestion is just that as I read these two sections, I found myself immediately wondering what multiple hashes would look like, and in particular that it would be a good thing to demonstrate.  I found out later that those examples do exist down in an appendix.  Not a major point in any case.

I did not create a gh-issue for this, then. If you think this should
be addressed, please let us know!

>>> Section 5 and Section 7.2:
>>> * I encountered this section and followed the link to find that this section is talking about a registry that doesn't actually exist.  That this section is actually specifying a new registry was not clear until Section 7.2.  Can we clarify this somehow?

In "document-structure" we say that we are bootstrapping a new
registry. I'm ok to express that in the "abstract" if this can help.

>>> For that matter, why not merge this section down into what's in 7.2?

iirc we did something similar to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-18.1
in order to avoid normative statements in IANA. To avoid inserting
normative statements
in IANA considerations, I think we could move the table only in 7.2
leaving 5. in the current place.
Does it make sense to you?

>>> * A "Specification Required" registry obligates the assignment of one or more Designated Experts.
>>>   Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 says the defining document should contain guidance to the DEs about what criteria are to be applied when doing reviews.
>>>   None seem to be present here.  Is there anything that needs to be said?
> I also think that text in 3230 is confusing to me.  The first sentence is pretty much exactly the definition of "Specification Required".
> I don't understand how it can simultaneously be that and "First Come First Served", which is its own (far less rigorous) registration model.

I think it's ok not to mention FCFS since it causes confusion. For the
specific policy
I'd hear from Mark/Francesca and the other folks.

>> IANAIANAE (I am not an IANA expert) - during the spec development we kind of punted the matter of the registries until this phase of the document cycle.
>> now would be a good time to discuss between authors, chairs, ADs and the current designated expert of the old registry
>> What we were trying to do was create something that followed a similar process to how the current registry has been operated

Please, can you take a look at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1801 wrt how to
manage
the old registry (which is currently used by Digest implementers)?

>> I'm not comfortable mandating DE criteria without involving the current DE in the discussion.

@Manger, James have your say :)

Thank you all,
R.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 10:04:47 UTC