W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: Call for Adoption: draft-richanna-http-message-signatures

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 11:27:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9obRChNiPZN7O-pk3BxeeTKkgPoeXhCtU0UhLP3xbHFA7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark,

A video of the presentation at SECDISPATCH is also available on YouTube.
IETF106-SECDISPATCH-20191119-1710 at the 50 minute mark, direct link:

I think it makes sense to discuss in the HTTP WG, I would be willing to
review and contribute. I think its important to figure out how this
approach differs from other signing methods mentioned previously, and to
document/articulate that in a way that is accessible to the wider community.

There is a relationship between Digest header and signatures, having some
way to discuss this coherently may be beneficial.

From the presentation, slide 11 titled "Cavage Signature Drama":

> * Editors of draft publish major updates in draft -11
> * Everyone using it freaks out and pegs to draft -10

draft-richanna-http-message-signatures clearly states that it is based on
draft-cavage-http-signatures-12. Do we have a sense of the appetite for
implementers to pick up any evolution of this specification basis, or is
draft-cavage-http-signatures-10 too sticky?

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2020 11:27:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:45 UTC