Re: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi John,

Snipping back to the comments you made on Section 5

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 6:41 PM Lucas Pardue <>

>> ### Section 5, reserved token value
>> In your description of the Status template field, you have ""reserved" -
>> for
>> algorithms that use a reserved token value that cannot be expressed in
>> Structured Fields". This is a well-formed sentence but I have no idea
>> what it
>> means. I made a desultory attempt to suss it out by searching the
>> document for
>> "token" and this was the only occurrence. If people who will actually be
>> making
>> use of the registry can be expected to make sense of it, then feel free to
>> disregard my comment, of course.
>> ### Section 5, "optionally the key"
>> A few lines further down you have "Reference(s): pointer(s) to the primary
>> document(s) defining the technical details of the algorithm, and
>> optionally the
>> key". I couldn't work out what "the key" is in this context, that would be
>> placed in the registry. The values you've seeded the registry with don't
>> provide any examples, so I'm none the wiser for having checked there.
> Thanks for pointing these out. I agree they could be improved/clarified.
> I'll have a think and submit a proposal to the Github repo where this draft
> live. I'll update here when that happens.

 After a bit of mental acheaology, this "reserved" field was a hangover
from a design that died on the vine. As such, it doesn't really make
logical sense and sorry you spent some time trying to figure it out. The
status isn't used by the registrations in the draft and doesn't make sense
to use for new ones. To that end, I've made an issue and a PR to remove it.

Similarly, the old design would have allowed an optional key. So as part of
the tidy up, I've rephrased things to make it clear the its Algorithm Key
and its not optional.


Thanks again


Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2023 13:54:54 UTC