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

So strangely, the Priority header already has a value in the column, and I
don't know why.

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, 15:24 Mark Nottingham, <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Just ask your friendly local registry expert (eg me).
>

Could we just do them all on one go please? Right now, it's not clear if an
entry is empty because it's not a Structured Field or because it hasn't
been updated. Also, should we think about adding a qualifier to
disambiguate retrofit structured fields?

Cheers
Lucas

>
> Cheers
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 1 Oct 2024, at 5:06 am, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> 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.*
>
>