Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-10

Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> Wed, 09 November 2022 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24751C1522BC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 02:07:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vats8yoc1UBy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 02:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43312C1522B7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 02:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oshwv-00C4xg-Sq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 10:04:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 10:04:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oshwv-00C4xg-Sq@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1oshwt-00C4wW-TF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 10:04:47 +0000
Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1oshwr-008gqG-Tb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 10:04:47 +0000
Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 130so3417021pgc.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 02:04:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=VN0IjwVB1cr2YskOIQ0QxeAwx+JmSEiV0kcWktifYvE=; b=kwJtelQaocx932/YI4WUc5uf0jia0Y4QYtCAWyVA72RnfFdso5KHMb0DcCAK+FZKCU bFzvMRwy/SFOYLwzIjkV5QIbDs5qI/DK3aQZAuLcDloYJEo5hwg+cyRswc68K+mYsjKa 5lqJS1EbOPnUcUzF+5T0WP4HnCXfBXR8EamFqzbKh9WRMppE2bL7N/wOuGcg/4R07haV PdiSrdlz3b1721E26K7jF6hrEt8Do94Afkhq8yuKGLQlwd8FDyLZKSsnusFVZzNRwq4Q 8uDNPXR+WpGYmqeTv6va88yOmN/U63pTco4RNFHeM0vXMXEzJrIyFFiWs++4O/tS+wug 1pVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VN0IjwVB1cr2YskOIQ0QxeAwx+JmSEiV0kcWktifYvE=; b=R5JrJEaJwLlzOJIy3JyTJoUwa1vFkUy7JVltLgyyXys3WKn0dXRrNvs8nAQzkfG3Ci StPdbfAZn+q44VCuT7oo//CLz5sollQbcdTe/lMvkG7pdIY+Y8e/1+UB9b7pvNoijeZM oczBBaAAJUnTIhxeZ61EvyttdUSRZjgFLDUP4FkpEOE+qDT8kQZTP/2usMseI4IISpU0 EwR8zctlAn5nViQfF7TO5BvwY7L0pRkct58z1Q7RlhpQEnxgz3+9RG0J8BWVwV/rQEjk iZTU1cIjnfH9ORKbg+vhQb8ON8BaRIR5fx6oIygXZ09e3uftocDjv8nBU+W8qLKkkWv8 qgIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf38AYCqylren/VlOPOowz9d5gOm9C/CD6e5qUVxayaPjF3FUzNu HVy1UZcve4YAa2OLLfBaVXNrqbsgn1bEaBJlwQs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4vCHhNw4gL6EfF5xS7LerNCBQze2JlQfbxBEv++6qM5hWF0RKJUNOSCrBBJ5yLZjfJ5JcrgngkQ1N9tNQfujk=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5b47:0:b0:46b:1a7d:7106 with SMTP id y7-20020a655b47000000b0046b1a7d7106mr50832410pgr.513.1667988273943; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 02:04:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165568314250.27214.12601666470763517171@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwbs6nMrVX4QXprkP9Nv5DbRLN--_-ZfDDPf8CApO-YqvA@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZ3k0g-WAuEGRvkjjAz+Uxyb5U8_41GR-zNCL-7cxQ05Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZgojJcVwAH1U69OnH3p3u_-Dfqydxoj6UgfL8L5v8FJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZgojJcVwAH1U69OnH3p3u_-Dfqydxoj6UgfL8L5v8FJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:04:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHUGgL++9924K0DDz+r+F+yTRP+V9c7nS+2+6aQF2JUG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::536; envelope-from=robipolli@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-x536.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=robipolli@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1oshwr-008gqG-Tb 690d9f8da3a9426b25ba01c5ed0a2c25
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-10
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAP9qbHUGgL++9924K0DDz+r+F+yTRP+V9c7nS+2+6aQF2JUG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40551
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Murray,

thanks for the review! +Manger, James who is the current DE for dig-alg

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 11:53, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:39 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Section 2 [and 3]:
>>>
>>> * I suggest including a forward reference to the appendices, where examples of replies including multiple hashes can be found.
>> [..] In each of these sections, [..we..] immediately give an example of a field containing sha-256 and sha-512.
> I think my suggestion is just that as I read these two sections, I found myself immediately wondering what multiple hashes would look like, and in particular that it would be a good thing to demonstrate.  I found out later that those examples do exist down in an appendix.  Not a major point in any case.

I did not create a gh-issue for this, then. If you think this should
be addressed, please let us know!

>>> Section 5 and Section 7.2:
>>> * I encountered this section and followed the link to find that this section is talking about a registry that doesn't actually exist.  That this section is actually specifying a new registry was not clear until Section 7.2.  Can we clarify this somehow?

In "document-structure" we say that we are bootstrapping a new
registry. I'm ok to express that in the "abstract" if this can help.

>>> For that matter, why not merge this section down into what's in 7.2?

iirc we did something similar to
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-18.1
in order to avoid normative statements in IANA. To avoid inserting
normative statements
in IANA considerations, I think we could move the table only in 7.2
leaving 5. in the current place.
Does it make sense to you?

>>> * A "Specification Required" registry obligates the assignment of one or more Designated Experts.
>>>   Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 says the defining document should contain guidance to the DEs about what criteria are to be applied when doing reviews.
>>>   None seem to be present here.  Is there anything that needs to be said?
> I also think that text in 3230 is confusing to me.  The first sentence is pretty much exactly the definition of "Specification Required".
> I don't understand how it can simultaneously be that and "First Come First Served", which is its own (far less rigorous) registration model.

I think it's ok not to mention FCFS since it causes confusion. For the
specific policy
I'd hear from Mark/Francesca and the other folks.

>> IANAIANAE (I am not an IANA expert) - during the spec development we kind of punted the matter of the registries until this phase of the document cycle.
>> now would be a good time to discuss between authors, chairs, ADs and the current designated expert of the old registry
>> What we were trying to do was create something that followed a similar process to how the current registry has been operated

Please, can you take a look at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1801 wrt how to
manage
the old registry (which is currently used by Digest implementers)?

>> I'm not comfortable mandating DE criteria without involving the current DE in the discussion.

@Manger, James have your say :)

Thank you all,
R.