Re: HTTP Signatures draft published at IETF

Hi,

From's semantics and syntax are well-defined, and they are in use. If you want to do this, I'd suggest defining a new header, or a new link relation (to use in Link); From isn't going to fly.

Regards,


On 09/05/2013, at 7:18 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> Excerpts from Kingsley Idehen's message of 2013-05-08 20:29:19 +0000:
>> On 5/7/13 2:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 7 May 2013 19:01, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com 
>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    On 05/07/2013 04:04 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I'll ping Julian Reschke or Mark Nottingham about it to see if
>>>> we can update the HTTP header field easily.
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> There have been proponents of this for many years e.g. Toby, Nathan,
>>>> Kingsley, myself ... just need to get the spec tweaked to
>>>> distinguish between strings and URIs.
>>> 
>>>    Do one of you want to take the lead on this? :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sure, I would be happy to.  Kingsley already asked Mark Nottingham 
>>> about this last month.  Im unsure what the most productive next steps 
>>> should be.
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Another dimension to the same issue.
>> 
>> We can loosen the HTTP spec requirements for "From:" without disrupting 
>> existing products that assume the header value is an Email address.
>> 
>> All:
>> 
>> Do we have any data about how broad current use of "From:" actually is?
> +1 on allowing URI in "From:" request header :)
> 
> I set it myself to email for about 2 years now using firefox extension: http://www.garethhunt.com/modifyheaders
> 
> I also mentioned it in this email with link to work of Blaine Cook on *Privacy-over-Webfinger*
> https://groups.google.com/group/webfinger/browse_thread/thread/52599662c273a043
> 
> warning: mentioned thread got mixed with another thread so few messages went off topic first!

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 00:05:56 UTC