Fwd: Structured type of Client-Cert and Client-Cert-Chain

Hi folks of HTTP and IANA,

Are there (hopefully not heavyweight) procedures or processes available to
add values for the newish "Structured Type" column in the HTTP Field Name
Registry for fields, like those from RFC 9440 and 9421, which were defined
as structured types per RFC 8941 before the "Structured Type" column was
available on the registry?


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Structured type of Client-Cert and Client-Cert-Chain
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>


HI Brian,

Thank you for explaining the field name registry. I wasn't aware of RFC
9651 at all!

And of course, I don’t mind if you forward my message. In addition to
Client-Cert and Client-Cert-Chain, the structured data types for the
Signature field and the Signature-Input field (from RFC 9421) have been
explicitly defined as Dictionary. It would be great if this information
could also be registered.


On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:41 AM Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
wrote:

> Hi Taka,
>
> I think that column was only recently added to the Field Name registry by
> the draft that only very very recently became RFC 9651. I'd think/hope it
> wouldn't be an issue to update the registry entries from RFC 9440 too. Do
> you mind if I forward your message to some IANA and/or HTTP people to ask
> about getting things updated?
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 3:32 PM Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> How are you?
>>
>> The RFC 9440 Client-Cert HTTP Header Field
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9440.html>, which you authored,
>> defines the Client-Cert and Client-Cert-Chain fields. The specification
>> explicitly states that their structured data types are Item (Byte Sequence)
>> and List, respectively. However, this information is not reflected in the IANA
>> Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/http-fields.xhtml>. It
>> would be great if you could use your influence to have IANA update the
>> information.
>>
>> The reason for this request is that such information is useful for
>> developers considering support for the sf flag, which is defined in Section
>> 2.1. HTTP Fields
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9421.html#section-2.1> of RFC 9421
>> HTTP Message Signatures <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9421.html>,
>> based on the official source.
>>
>> Thank you in advance!
>>
>> --
>> *Takahiko Kawasaki*
>> Co-Founder
>> taka@authlete.com
>> [image: Authlete]
>> authlete.com <https://www.authlete.com/> |Linkedin
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/authlete/>
>> Palo Alto, Tokyo, London, Dubai
>>
>

-- 
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your 
computer. Thank you._