Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-04: (with COMMENT)

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-04: 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-unencoded-digest/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Lucas and Mike,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

The text includes adequate provisions for local policies to better control the
handling of the digests.

Please find below some few comments:

# Broken link

CURRENT:
   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/unecoded-digest.

# Update definitions, not terms

OLD:
   This document updates the terms "Integrity fields" and "Integrity
   preference fields" defined in RFC 9530.

NEW:
   This document updates the definitions of terms "Integrity fields" and
   "Integrity preference fields" defined in RFC 9530.

OLD:
   This document updates the term "Integrity fields" defined in
   [DIGEST-FIELDS] to also include the Unencoded-Digest field,

NEW:
   This document updates the definition of term "Integrity fields" defined in
   [DIGEST-FIELDS] to also include the Unencoded-Digest field,

# Folding

CURRENT:
   This document uses the line folding strategies described in
   [FOLDING].

This is used only for examples. I would move [FOLDING] from Normative to
Informative.

# Ease future referencing to the updated definitions

Maybe consider adding entries in Section 2:

NEW:
 "Integrity fields" is the collective term for Content-Digest, Repr-Digest, and
 Unencoded-Digest.

 "Integrity preference fields" is the collective term for Want-Repr-Digest,
 Want-Content-Digest, and Want-Unencoded-Digest.

# Section 3

CURRENT:
   A sender MAY send a digest if it
   knows the recipient will ignore it.

Consider adding an example to illustrate how it knows that.

# Section 4

## Maybe

OLD: must be in the range 0 to 10 inclusive.

NEW: MUST be in the range 0 to 10 inclusive.

## Examples of valid values

OLD:
  Examples:

NEW:
  Examples of valid Want-Unencoded-Digest values are:

Cheers,
Med

Received on Friday, 27 March 2026 10:41:16 UTC