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

Hi Lucas,

Thank you for the follow-up.

ACK for the consistency argument vs RFC 9530 for some of the points. That's fair.

I noted that you will be sharing a PR once you are ready for the other points.

Cheers,
Med

De : Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Envoyé : vendredi 27 mars 2026 13:12
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc : The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest@ietf.org; httpbis-chairs@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Objet : 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<mailto: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



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.