- From: Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:54:44 -0700
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-11: 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-unprompted-auth/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments about draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-11 The document is well written and explains well the intended behavior to people without significant HTTP knowledge (like myself). I found it missed (simplification) opportunity to see that the reference tags towards references are mnemonic names instead of indicating the RFC numbers itself. i find that it obscures the indication when a reference is an IETF resource or is a non-IETF resource. For example [EdDSA] is used while it would of been easier to use [RFC8032]. Currently, a reader has an extra step and needs to check the correlation of reference tag with the actual reference itself. Not sure if this is the most optimal structure to use in an IETF document.
Received on Monday, 16 September 2024 15:54:50 UTC