Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types-04
review-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types-04-secdir-lc-kaufman-2026-02-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2026-02-28
Requested 2026-01-22
Authors Marius Kleidl , Lucas Pardue , Roberto Polli
I-D last updated 2026-08-13 (Latest revision 2026-06-24)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Lars Eggert (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/KHVluJBi0hK5KvWtsWreMn9wWiY/
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-02-22
review-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types-04-secdir-lc-kaufman-2026-02-26-00
Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

This document registers three new error messages for an http server to report
problems with an http request. I find it unsettling the amount of text people
must generate (and so many other people must review) to accomplish such a
simple task, but it would be unfair to blame the authors who are victims of the
system our community has developed. I wonder when these documents will start
being constructed by AI.

The security considerations section is well written though obvious and
therefore not terribly useful.

I found no nits.

I sure hope we can ship this thing without too many more rounds of revisions.