Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-01 (Ends 2025-11-30)

Dear Lucas et al,

Thanks for bringing forward this work. I think it's really useful!

I hope it's not too late for some editorial suggestions,
that you can find in this branch
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/compare/ioggstream-unencoded-review?expand=1

In general, I'd prefer "no content coding applied" or "no content coded" to
"unencoded" which may turn ambiguous
when dealing with HTTP messages.

To avoid polluting the repo after the WGLC I did not open a PR though,
let me know if I should open one (or more).

Have a nice day,
R.


On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 00:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> WGLC has ended, and while on-list responses have been sparse, we've heard
> good support for this document in the meetings, and there hasn't been any
> pushback. So, we'll send it along to the IESG.
>
> Authors, please incorporate the feedback you received during WGLC and
> publish an updated draft.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > On 17 Nov 2025, at 11:55 am, Mark Nottingham via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-01 (Ends
> > 2025-11-30)
> >
> > This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for this document.
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   The Repr-Digest and Content-Digest integrity fields are subject to
> >   HTTP content coding considerations.  There are some use cases that
> >   benefit from the unambiguous exchange of integrity digests of
> >   unencoded representation.  The Unencoded-Digest and Want-Unencoded-
> >   Digest fields complement existing integrity fields for this purpose.
> >
> > File can be retrieved from:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest/
> >
> > Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
> > publication of this document by replying to this email keeping
> > ietf-http-wg@w3.org in copy. Objections should be motivated and
> suggestions
> > to resolve them are highly appreciated.
> >
> > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
> > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
> BCP 79
> > [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
> > provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware
> of
> > any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy
> can
> > be found at [3].
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>