Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-12: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via, so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-16`, but `-17` is
the latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 1
fication. How to deal with an ignored preferences is a scenario that should b
The plural noun "preferences" cannot be used with the article "an". Did you
mean "an ignored preference" or "ignored preferences"?

#### Section 6.1, paragraph 2
es of Content-Type, Content-Encoding etc). A signature that protects Integri
A period is needed after the abbreviation "etc.".

#### "B.6.", paragraph 7
Repr-Digest is designed to be independent from the use of one or more transf
The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independent of"?

#### "B.11.", paragraph 6
e Digest field. This resulted in a mixed of formats such as base64, hex or d
The phrase "a mixed of" is not correct. Use a noun, not an adjective, between
"a" and "of".

#### "Appendix E.", paragraph 1
ncrypted content * Digest is independent from MESSAGING and HTTP/1.1 is not
The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independent of"?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].


Received on Thursday, 25 May 2023 05:51:39 UTC