Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-15

Julian, the editors are aware of the currently filed issues, including the one you just filed, thank you. Not all of these items have consensus for change in the specification, particularly your interpretation of the relationship to sfbis as discussed at length here in this group. I agree that these should be resolved, though.

Several of the items Francesca raises are at least partial duplicates of currently tracked issues, and those will be resolved together.

- Justin

________________________________
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 12:21 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-15

On 09.01.2023 22:38, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> # AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-15
>
> cc @fpalombini
>
> Thank you to the authors and working group for another well written
> document. Also, I appreciate the several examples throughout the
> document, they make the text even more clear and easy to read.
>
> I don't have many comments, mostly minor and nits. I do have one comment
> about the reference to HTMLURL that we should probably fix before the
> IETF Last Call is started. The rest of the comment and questions you can
> address together with any other IETF Last Call comments. Feel free to
> take or leave, however answers are appreciated.
> ...

Thanks Francesca.

Reminder, there are several issues that the current draft does not
address but which were raised many weeks ago.

Some of those opened by me are:

1) The language about combining field instances is somewhat misleading
(https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2326,
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2324).

2) The relation to sfbis is not clear (previously mentioned in mail, now
tracked in https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2362).

I just checked and there are 10 (now 11) open issues related to the
spec; I believe it would be good to address those (plus the things you
raised), submit a new draft, and start IETF LC only after that has happened.

Best regards, Julian