Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9421 <draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19> for your review

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lynne,

Yes, that change is fine — I checked the defining RFC and it uses "EdDSA" regularly, so we can go with "EdDSA using curve edwards25519" as the value here.

Thank you!

— Justin

On Feb 9, 2024, at 3:19 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Justin and Manu.

We are preparing this document for publication along with RFC-to-be 9530.

Apologies for not spotting this earlier:

The last entry in the "HTTP Signature Algorithms" registry on <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-message-signature/> and the last entry in Table 2 do not follow the format/pattern used for the other entries.  Would you like "Edwards Curve DSA using curve edwards25519" in Table 2 and on the IANA page to be "EdDSA using curve edwards25519"?  We ask because the other entries appear to follow the form of the corresponding section titles.

We have a couple other updates that we need to ask IANA to make before we publish this document, so if you agree to the update listed above, we will add it to the list of update requests for IANA.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb


On Feb 6, 2024, at 4:11 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Paul.

Thank you for approving on Annabelle's behalf.  We have noted approvals for publication for both of you:

 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421

This document will be published when RFC-to-be 9530 is published.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

On Feb 6, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:


On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 1:16 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi, Paul.

Per the emails below, would you please approve this document for publication on behalf of Annabelle?

I was checking to see when we last heard from her, which seems to be October 2023. Since that's been
a while, I approve publication on her behalf.

Paul

Please see <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421> for the AUTH48 timeline for this document.

The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:

 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-auth48diff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastdiff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastrfcdiff.html

 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff2.html

Thank you.

RFC Editor/lb

On Feb 6, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Justin and Manu.

Thank you for the quick replies.  We will email the AD to request AD approval on behalf of Annabelle.

RFC Editor/lb

On Feb 6, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Manu Sporny <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:54 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
I strongly prefer option 3.

Agreed.

-- manu

On Feb 6, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

I strongly prefer option 3.

Thank you,
-Justin
From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:26 AM
To: Justin Richer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>; Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9421 <draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19> for your review   Hi, Justin.  We have three options, as listed on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor>.

It sounds like Option 3 might be best in this case, but please let us know your preference regarding next steps.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/lb

On Feb 5, 2024, at 3:11 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Sandy et al,

In addition to these emails, I have reached out to Annabelle on personal channels and have not heard back from her there either in quite some time. I am not sure what her situation is right now, but I am not sure we can anticipate her responding soon. I hate to be in the position to ask this, but is there a process for moving forward if we don't hear a response from her?

- Justin
From: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 11:29 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Justin Richer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>; Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>; RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>; Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9421 <draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19> for your review   Hi Annabelle,

We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication.  Please review the files and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg

On Jan 29, 2024, at 7:54 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

Thank you!

- Justin
From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:15 PM
To: Justin Richer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Annabelle Backman <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>; Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9421 <draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19> for your review

Hi, Justin.

We've made the additional updates in Sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.5 per your notes below.  The latest files are here:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastrfcdiff.html

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff2.html

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421

Again, many thanks for your help with this document!

RFC Editor/lb

On Jan 29, 2024, at 12:35 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

I think it’s fine to lowercase those items. I may have been going a little overboard on Assuming Terms Are Proper Nouns there. :)

Two small changes we need to make:

- In section 7.1.1, "HTTP message without the Signature fields" should be "HTTP message without the Signature or Signature-Input fields".
- In section 7.2.5, "HTTP message signature field values are identified" should be reverted to "HTTP message signature values are identified", as I think I was over-zealous at adding "field" here.

With those in place, I approve this version. Thank you so much!


— Justin

On Jan 29, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Justin.

Thank you for the latest XML file!  We made further updates as noted below.

* Removed the [rfced] questions again
* Changed "boolean" to "Boolean" (per your note that we can go with "Boolean" for all cases)
* Changed "HTTP Message" to "HTTP message where used generally (per your note that "HTTP message" is fine and seems to align with RFC 9110)
* Changed "HTTP Message Signature" to "HTTP message signature" in running text (per your note below)
* Updated our XML comment for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers again, to point out that draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers is in AUTH48-DONE as of January 2024; if draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers is published first, we will update this document to list RFC 9530 instead

Please note that we found five instances each of "HTTP Message Component" and "HTTP message component" in running text.  Apologies for missing this earlier.  Because we couldn't find a precedent for this term in published RFCs to date (nor could we find a precedent for "HTTP Message Signature" or "HTTP message signature"), we lowercased to "HTTP message component", "HTTP message component name", and "HTTP message component values" in running text.  Please review, and let us know any objections.

The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-lastrfcdiff.html

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff2.html

Thanks again!

RFC Editor/lb


On Jan 29, 2024, at 8:45 AM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

I went through all instances of the word "string" in the text and I believe there were only four places that needed to change. The resulting file is attached here.

— Justin



On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:57 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:


On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:45 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Justin.

Apologies for not being clear.  Please let us know your preference regarding how we should update the four items below.  (Question 12)b) says "The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.")


Oh, my apologies, I misunderstood — answers inline below.

Regarding RFC-to-be 9530:  Per our standard process, even though I updated the entry, if RFC-to-be 9530 hasn't been published before this document is ready to go, I will revert to the previous [DIGEST]/draftstring reference entry.

OK, that’s fine. My question was that RFC-to-be 9530 has an informative reference to RFC-to-be 9421 (this document). Would it be possible to publish the two documents together and have them cross-reference each other’s RFC number, since we’re so close?


Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

On Jan 26, 2024, at 2:17 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

Thank you, yes please update each of those as you have suggested.

I believe RFC 9530 [DIGEST] is done as well, but I don’t see a good reason to wait until it’s published. I think it references this specification informationally as well — has that reference also been changed? If they’re both close to complete then they should probably have each others’ RFC numbers instead of ID names in them, I think. They weren’t put in as a batch though, and this isn’t critical as they’re informational references.

— Justin

On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:07 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi, Justin and Manu.

Justin, thank you very much for the updated XML file, diff file, and replies to our questions!

Follow-up items for you:

Regarding your side question for [DIGEST]:  We have updated this entry to reflect RFC 9530 for now.  Thank you for pointing that out.  It appears that RFC 9530 might be published soon, but if not, would you like us to hold publication of this document until RFC 9530 is published?

Regarding our question 12)b) and your replies:  We see that the following four items were not addressed in the updated XML file.  Would you like us to make updates to some or all of these?  If yes, please specify which items:

boolean / Boolean

This change is fine.


We can go with "Boolean" for all cases.

HTTP Message / HTTP message (used generally in text, e.g.,
"of an HTTP message.  Note that a given HTTP Message can contain",
"the HTTP message and", "the HTTP Message and", "from the HTTP
Message", "from the HTTP message")


This change is fine.

"HTTP message" is fine, and seems to align with RFC9110.


HTTP Message Signature(s) / HTTP message signature(s) /
HTTP Message signature (in running text)
(e.g., "Applications of HTTP Message Signatures", "an application
of HTTP message signatures", "An HTTP Message Signature"
(Section 3), "an HTTP message signature" (Section 3.1),
"An HTTP Message signature MUST use")


This change is fine.

With the above, let’s go with "HTTP message signature".


string value / String value


This change is fine.

This one is more tricky — if it’s talking about the Structured Field type of String, it should be capitalized. If it’s talking about a "string" in general, it shouldn’t be.


= = = = =

The latest files are posted here:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-auth48diff.html

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff2.html

Manu, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421

Thanks again!

RFC Editor/lb


On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:58 AM, Manu Sporny <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:48 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
Attached please find the XML file with some small edits applied with regard to the below, as well as a diff file from the provided XML.

This email is just noting my approval of the edits (thank you,
Justin!) as well as the publication of the RFC.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/


On Jan 25, 2024, at 8:48 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi RFC Editor!

Attached please find the XML file with some small edits applied with regard to the below, as well as a diff file from the provided XML.

There were a couple of small changes to the text that I caught on this read through that I fixed in the XML, not covered in the sections below:

- Section 1.3, bullet 2, "A combination" should be reverted to "Combination", as we are trying to say "the act and result of combining the fields with the same name" which is specifically described in HTTP

- Section 2.1, "content identifier" should be "component identifier"

- Section B.1.1. should be named "Example RSA Key", so I’ve updated the XML as appropriate.

- Example B.2 had an incorrect digest value, this has been corrected (see https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2669) — the calculated signature example that uses this value in B.2.4 had already been corrected and did not need to be changed.

I’ve also replied to the questions inline.


On Jan 22, 2024, at 6:54 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have removed the URI <https://manu.sporny.org/>.  We checked its availability many times (including today) and were unable to connect.
<uri>https://manu.sporny.org/</uri> -->


That’s fine with me.


2) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and subsequent:  Because many changes were
made to this document during the EDIT and AUTH states, please review
all updates in this document carefully, and let us know if anything
is incorrect.

I’ve reviewed and, apart from the edits noted above, this section is good.


Also, a follow-on to December 2023 email discussions regarding the
use of <tt>:  Please (1) review current instances of <tt> and
(2) review changes from "header" to "header field" as instructed
during the AUTH state (not applied to all parameters).  Let us know
if further updates are needed. -->


I’ve gone through the document and have checked instances of <tt> and "header/header field" and these seem to be OK with the suggested edits.


3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
element in the XML file to ensure correctness.  If the current list
of preferred values for "type"
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not
contain an applicable type, please let us know.  Also, it is
acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.

In addition, review each artwork element.  Specifically, should any
artwork element be tagged as sourcecode? -->

I’ve gone through all of these, and they look correct. I made not changes in the attached file.



4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 2.2.8 and subsequent:  Please review the links
that we provided when we made updates to the citations to [HTMLURL]
(best viewed in the HTML and PDF output files), and let us know if
there are any issues.  For example, it appears to us that these links
would be stable, but please let us know if this is incorrect:

<https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#application/x-www-form-urlencoded>
for Section 5
<https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-parsing>
for Section 5.1
<https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-serializing>
for Section 5.2 -->


These all seem to be correct. I made no changes in the attached file.


5) <!-- [rfced] For alignment with the IANA registry, would it be appropriate to change "Specification document(s)" to "Reference(s)" in the descriptions and the column headers throughout Section 6?

Example from Section 6.2.1:
Specification document(s):
Reference to the document(s) that specify the algorithm,
preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of
the document(s).  An indication of the relevant sections may also
be included but is not required.
-->


I’m OK with this change. I have changed the attached file to use "Reference" (with no (s) attached) for both the description and column name to match the created IANA registry.


6) <!-- [rfced] The description for ed25519 is slightly different than the other entries.  Is this intentional, or perhaps the description could be updated as follows:

Original:
Edwards Curve DSA using curve edwards25519

Perhaps:
ECDSA using curve edwards25519
-->


The existing text is correct as per rfc8032, no changes should be made.


7) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to verify this statement.  Please confirm that the reference is correct.

Original:
As discussed in [DIGEST], the value of the Content-Digest field is
dependent on the content encoding of the message.
-->


Yes, this is discussed at length in sections 2 and 3 of DIGEST.

An aside from the authors - we will need to update this reference to the digest RFC number, right?


8) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3.3:  As it appears that "its" actually refers
to the symmetric cryptographic methods, we changed "its" to "their".
If this is incorrect, please clarify what "its" refers to.

Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
The HTTP Message Signatures specification allows for both asymmetric
and symmetric cryptography to be applied to HTTP messages.  By its
nature, symmetric cryptographic methods require the same key material
to be known by both the signer and verifier.

Currently:
By their
nature, symmetric cryptographic methods require the same key material
to be known by both the signer and verifier. -->


Yes, this change is OK.


9) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update "other historical drafts" to "other Internet-Drafts"?  Is mention of "historical" important?

Original:
It is recommended
that developers wishing to support both this specification and other
historical drafts do so carefully and deliberately, as
incompatibilities between this specification and various versions of
other drafts could lead to unexpected problems.
-->


I think "historical" is reasonable to keep as it is.


10) <!-- [rfced] Because this document is a Proposed Standard, may we update the following text?

Original:
It is recommended that implementers first detect and validate the
Signature-Input field defined in this specification to detect that
this standard is in use and not an alternative.

Perhaps:
It is recommended that implementers first detect and validate the
Signature-Input field defined in this specification to detect that
the mechanism described in this document is in use and not an
alternative.
-->

Yes, this change is fine. I have updated the text as proposed. The sentence also ends with "this specification", is this OK to keep?



11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:

whitespace -->


This is the specific term used in [HTTP] so I believe we shouldn’t vary from it.


12) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
following:

a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document.
We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any objections.

"@authority" derived component (last paragraph of Section 7.2.4) /
@authority derived component (per unquoted names of derived
components in the rest of this document)


I have changed this to be wrapped in <tt> tags as in other places in the document, removing the quotes.

dictionary / Dictionary (per [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]; we see that
[STRUCTURED-FIELDS] uses the term "Dictionary".)


This change is fine.

dictionary structured field / Dictionary structured field /
Dictionary Structured Field
(per [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]; we see that [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] uses
the terms "Dictionary" and "Structured Field".)


This change is fine.

Note:  We also changed instances of "structured field" where used
more generally to "Structured Field", also per usage in
[STRUCTURED-FIELDS].  Please let us know any concerns.


This change is fine.

ed25519 algorithm / Ed25519 algorithm (per RFC 8032)


This change is fine.

encoded in big-endian unsigned integers /
encoded as big-endian unsigned integers

This change is fine


Host field (1 instance) / Host header field

This change is fine. I believe I found a few other places that were not using "field" and have updated them in the attached text.


host name (2 instances in original) /
hostname (5 instances in original)

This change is fine


HTTP Signature Algorithm(s) (used generally in Sections 6.2
and 6.2.1) / HTTP signature algorithm(s)


This change is fine.

key id (Section 4.3) / keyid

I changed this to "key" to be consistent with other uses of identifying keys directly in examples. "keyid" on its own is used as "<tt>keyid</tt> parameter" or similar, and "key identifier" is used when speaking of the term generically.


line-folding / line folding (per RFC 9112)


This change is fine.

RSA PSS / RSA-PSS (per post-6000 published RFCs, including
RFC 8017)


This change is fine.

signature field / Signature field


This change is fine.

Unix timestamp / UNIX timestamp


This change is fine.

b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.

Accept header (noun) (4 instances) /
Accept-Header (adj.) ("Accept-Header signature") (1 instance)


This should be "Accept header field", I have changed this in the attached file.

boolean / Boolean

This change is fine.


"host" header field ('"host" header field is specific to HTTP/1.1') /
Host header ('the Host header field in HTTP/1.1')


This should be Host header field, I have changed this in the attached file.

HTTP Message / HTTP message (used generally in text, e.g.,
"of an HTTP message.  Note that a given HTTP Message can contain",
"the HTTP message and", "the HTTP Message and", "from the HTTP
Message", "from the HTTP message")


This change is fine.

HTTP Message Signature(s) / HTTP message signature(s) /
HTTP Message signature (in running text)
(e.g., "Applications of HTTP Message Signatures", "an application
of HTTP message signatures", "An HTTP Message Signature"
(Section 3), "an HTTP message signature" (Section 3.1),
"An HTTP Message signature MUST use")


This change is fine.

Referer / Referrer (Appendix B.4)
We see both spellings used in post-6000 published RFCs.  Google
searches for "what is a referer header?" and "what is a referrer
header?" both seem to indicate that "Referer" is technically
correct but that it is "a misspelling of Referrer".

Because RFC 9110 uses "Referer", it might be best to use that
form, but we defer to your choice.  Please advise.


This should be "Referer header field", I have updated the text in the attached file.

signature value(s) (37 instances in text) /
Signature value(s) (6 instances in text)


The distinction is correct, but was unclear in the text. When used uppercase as "Signature value" it is referring specifically to the Signature field value, so I have changed those instances to "Signature field value" to be precise. I’ve made the same change to Signature-Input field value here. The lowercase instances all refer to the value of the HTTP message signature itself, not specifically the field.

status code derived component / @status code /
@status derived component
(We suggest the latter, as @status is defined as "The status code
for a response" in Section 2.2.)


This should be left as is.

string value / String value


This change is fine.

The hash function (Hash) SHA-<###> / The hash SHA-<###> /
The hash function SHA-<###>


This should be left as -is since <tt>Hash</tt> is defined as an algorithm variable in the associated RFC8017.

c) Spacing after colons in message examples:  Should there be only
one space after the colons for the following?

X-OWS-Header:   Leading and trailing whitespace.
Cache-Control:    must-revalidate
Example-Dict:  a=1,    b=2;x=1;y=2,   c=(a   b   c)
Example-Dict:  a=1,    b=2;x=1;y=2,   c=(a   b   c)
Example-Dict:  a=1, b=2;x=1;y=2, c=(a   b    c), d

For example, in post-6000 published RFCs, we see entries for
"Cache-Control:" (e.g., RFCs 9126, 9205, and 9449) and
"Example-Dict:" (RFC 8941) with only one space between the colon
and the parameter(s) in question.



The extra spaces here are specifically for an aberrant example of what to do with non-conforming text on the wire, and they should be left in.

d) Should "Digest" in this sentence be "Content-Digest"?  We ask
because of "Content-Digest field defined in [DIGEST]" in Section 1.4.

Original:
*  Requiring a specific set of header fields to be signed (e.g.,
Authorization, Digest). -->


Yes, this can change to "Content-Digest", I have updated the attached file.


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Jan 22, 2024, at 3:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/01/22

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:

<!-- [rfced] ... -->

These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors

Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content

Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references

*  Copyright notices and legends

Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

*  your coauthors

*  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

*  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

*  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:

*  More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

*  The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

*  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files
-----

The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt

Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
diff files of the XML.

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9421 (draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19)

Title            : HTTP Message Signatures
Author(s)        : A. Backman, Ed., J. Richer, Ed., M. Sporny
WG Chair(s)      : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini


<rfc9421-jricher.xml><rfc9421-jricher.diff>

<rfc9421-jricher2.xml>