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

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:
https://youtu.be/CYBhLQ0-fwE?t=3006

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?

Cheers
Lucas