Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Gunter, and thanks for your review.

Regarding the editorial decision to use descriptive names instead of RFC
numbers, we followed the HTTP Editorial Style Guide [1]. This matches other
RFCs from the HTTPBIS WG. The intention is that readers shouldn't be
memorizing RFC numbers.

Thanks,
David


[1] https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#reference-style

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 8:54 AM Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>