Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-16

On 07.03.2023 18:39, Justin Richer wrote:
> ...
>> All of section 2.2 seems to assume that we’re dealing only with HTTP
>> URLs. This
>> assumption should be made explicit.
>
> This specification is signing for HTTP messages. What other URLs would
> there be at play here? It seems redundant to call it out, especially
> because we’re using the terms from the HTTP semantics specification to
> define the components.
> ...

HTTP can in theory also be used to access resources with non-HTTP(s)
URIs. In HTTP/1.1, you can use the absolute form of the request target
for that.

Is it common? No (I believe).

Best regards, Julian