Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-06-06
Requested 2023-05-10
Authors Annabelle Backman , Justin Richer , Manu Sporny
I-D last updated 2023-05-16
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 Daniel Migault
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-05-16

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

The document seems to me ready with what it is trying to achieve.

I re-iterate my comments from version 15 [1]. To me, the critical aspect of
this specification remains - in my opinion -  in the canonical representation
of the HTTP message.

Some comments.

For example, this specification does not define a
means to directly cover HTTP message content (defined in Section 6.4
of [HTTP]), but relies on the [DIGEST] specification to provide a
hash of the message content, as discussed in Section 7.2.8.

I am reading this text as saying replacing content by its digest is an issue
which I find misleading. I think was is meant here is that he content is
replaced by specific fields.