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

Hi Lars,

Thanks for the review. Responses in line.

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:51 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # 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
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hOSKIuNLtGQoGLri4c1auAF9kP4
> ).
>
> ## 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 https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), 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 ### Outdated references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.
>

Signatures conceptually dovetails with digests. Assuming they both gain
IESG approval, I expect they'll both be submitted to the the RFC editor to
be published at the same time. The xrefxs can be resolved at that stage.


> ### 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"?
>

Applied in the Editor's copy. Thanks.

Cheers
Lucas