Skip to main content

Digest Fields
draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-06-29
10 Francesca Palombini Ballot writeup was changed
2022-06-29
10 (System) Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed)
2022-06-29
10 Francesca Palombini IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham
# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  _This document enjoyed broad discussion and two Working Group Last Calls._

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  _There were some philosophical differences about how backwards-compatible we should be, but
  we came to consensus._

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  _Not to my knowledge._

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  _There are some early implementations underway, and more have expressed interest._

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

  _It's had involvement from security folks, but might benefit from the SecDir review as well._

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  _N/A_

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  _N/A_

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  _HTTP examples have been validated._


### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  _Yes_

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

    _The Working Group believes that the relevant listed issues have been addressed._

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    _Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it._

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

    _Yes; no relevant IPR has been disclosed._

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

    _Implicitly, yes._

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

    - There is a non-ASCII character in the reference for RFC9260. This should be resolved by the RFC Editor.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    _No._

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    _N/A._

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

    _RFCs 1321; 1950; 3174; 6234._

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

    _No._

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    _Yes; There is no apparent way to reflect this in datatracker; Yes._

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

    _I checked section 7 of the draft against its references; all looks to be in order._

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    - Hash Algorithms for HTTP Digest Fields Registry. The instructions are brief but clear. I'd suggest one or both of the authors.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham
# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  _This document enjoyed broad discussion and two Working Group Last Calls._

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  _There were some philosophical differences about how backwards-compatible we should be, but
  we came to consensus._

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  _Not to my knowledge._

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  _There are some early implementations underway, and more have expressed interest._

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

  _It's had involvement from security folks, but might benefit from the SecDir review as well._

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  _N/A_

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  _N/A_

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  _HTTP examples have been validated._


### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  _Yes_

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

    _The Working Group believes that the relevant listed issues have been addressed._

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    _Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it._

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

    _Yes; no relevant IPR has been disclosed._

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

    _Implicitly, yes._

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

    - There is a non-ASCII character in the reference for RFC9260. This should be resolved by the RFC Editor.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    _No._

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    _N/A._

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

    _RFCs 1321; 1950; 3174; 6234._

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

    _No._

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    _Yes; There is no apparent way to reflect this in datatracker; Yes._

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

    _I checked section 7 of the draft against its references; all looks to be in order._

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    - Hash Algorithms for HTTP Digest Fields Registry. The instructions are brief but clear. I'd suggest one or both of the authors.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-06-19
10 Mark Nottingham Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-06-19
10 Lucas Pardue New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-10.txt
2022-06-19
10 Lucas Pardue New version approved
2022-06-19
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2022-06-19
10 Lucas Pardue Uploaded new revision
2022-05-25
09 Mark Nottingham 2nd WGLC
2022-05-25
09 Mark Nottingham Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG cleared.
2022-05-25
09 Mark Nottingham Notification list changed to mnot@mnot.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-05-25
09 Mark Nottingham Document shepherd changed to Mark Nottingham
2022-05-25
09 Lucas Pardue New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-09.txt
2022-05-25
09 Lucas Pardue New version approved
2022-05-25
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2022-05-25
09 Lucas Pardue Uploaded new revision
2022-04-21
08 Mark Nottingham Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG set.
2022-03-21
08 Lucas Pardue New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-08.txt
2022-03-21
08 (System) New version approved
2022-03-21
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2022-03-21
08 Lucas Pardue Uploaded new revision
2021-11-16
07 Mark Nottingham IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-11-16
07 Jenny Bui This document now replaces draft-polli-resource-digests-http instead of None
2021-11-16
07 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-07.txt
2021-11-16
07 (System) New version approved
2021-11-16
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2021-11-16
07 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2021-09-27
06 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-06.txt
2021-09-27
06 (System) New version approved
2021-09-27
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2021-09-27
06 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2021-04-13
05 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-05.txt
2021-04-13
05 (System) New version approved
2021-04-13
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2021-04-13
05 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-10-17
04 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-04.txt
2020-10-17
04 (System) New version approved
2020-10-17
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
2020-10-17
04 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-10-17
04 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-09-07
03 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-03.txt
2020-09-07
03 (System) New version approved
2020-09-07
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
2020-09-07
03 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-09-07
03 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-05-26
02 Mark Nottingham Added to session: interim-2020-httpbis-02
2020-03-09
02 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-02.txt
2020-03-09
02 (System) New version approved
2020-03-09
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
2020-03-09
02 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
02 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2019-11-03
01 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-01.txt
2019-11-03
01 (System) New version approved
2019-11-03
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
2019-11-03
01 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2019-11-03
01 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision
2019-07-04
00 Roberto Polli New version available: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-00.txt
2019-07-04
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-07-04
00 Roberto Polli Set submitter to "Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>" and sent approval email to group chairs: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org
2019-07-04
00 Roberto Polli Uploaded new revision