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

Hi Med,

Many thanks for the review, see responses in-line


On Fri, 27 Mar 2026, 10:46 Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker, <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Wow, surprised that stayed broken for so long without anyone finding it.


> # 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,
>

See below


> # 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.
>

Ack!

>
> # 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.
>

I understand the feedback but think I might take a slightly different
approach to addressing it than the suggestions. I'll provide a link to the
PR once I have something.


> # 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.
>

This is the same language used in RFC 9530, I think the best we can do is
to point to example c.2 in that doc.


> # Section 4
>
> ## Maybe
>
> OLD: must be in the range 0 to 10 inclusive.
>
> NEW: MUST be in the range 0 to 10 inclusive.
>

This format is consistent with RFC 9530, so I'd prefer to keep it as is


> ## Examples of valid values
>
> OLD:
>   Examples:
>
> NEW:
>   Examples of valid Want-Unencoded-Digest values are:
>

This presentation is consistent with RFC 9530 so I'd prefer to keep it as is

Cheers
Lucas


> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
>
>
>