[signatures] Terminology introducing derived component values

[tyler-ham]

Most of the derived component sections (2.2.x) introduce an example of canonicalization like the following:

Would result in the following @scheme value:

"@scheme": http

In some cases, "component value" (5 instances) is used instead of "value" (8 instances).

However, the examples that immediately follow these introductions are complete signature base lines, not just component values.

I want to suggest normalizing these all to "component value" and expanding the examples to identify the component value and signature base line separately. For example:

For example, the following request message requested over plain HTTP:

POST /path?param=value HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com

Would result in the following @scheme component value:

http

And the following signature base line:

"@scheme": http

I will send a pull request to show what I'm thinking here.

[jricher]

I personally find this a bit verbose, but it's better to over-explain than under-explain with the examples, so we'll take these in.

[tyler-ham]

I personally find this a bit verbose, but it's better to over-explain than under-explain with the examples

I share the same sentiments on both points. Thanks!