Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-17
review-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-17-artart-telechat-alvestrand-2023-06-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2023-06-06
Requested 2023-05-10
Authors Annabelle Backman , Justin Richer , Manu Sporny
I-D last updated 2023-06-06
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -17 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Secdir Early review of -05 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -16 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Bo Wu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Harald T. Alvestrand
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/7lIpmyG1zAFhhtY226PeFAoP8AY
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2023-06-06
review-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-17-artart-telechat-alvestrand-2023-06-06-00
The most important things I pointed out in my previous review have been at
least mentioned in the new draft - the need to look at complete ecosystems (new
paragraph in the introduction), better description of re-signing (section 4)
and the use of a server as a signature generator (7.3.7).

The discussion following the review also indicated a strong community interest
in deploying this technology.

If my misgivings about the approach (which I still have) are wrong, this is a
good standards track document. If my misgivings are correct, this will show
itself in deployment.

I don't think we should block this going on the standards track in its present
form.