IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: signatures vs sf-date

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 24 January 2023 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9A0C15E406 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:32:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b="GDwpRjkQ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="HU54nVGM"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7inLLP3BSmT0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3090CC15DD5D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:31:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1pK8A3-006nCa-KI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:31:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:31:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1pK8A3-006nCa-KI@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1pK8A1-006nBO-Qp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:31:41 +0000
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1pK8A0-00EOgQ-Eh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:31:41 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C8D5C0114; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:31:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:31:29 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1674523889; x= 1674610289; bh=7oqwYTxH7+1YMCy0EPEeYT5UTqu1C/ltlPNin0ojakY=; b=G DwpRjkQPcCo+RYa6VSodnycWnrQR6jJvzwpU3+PB14mFuS9FfIPS5rbb9xiLuPii g6SvOrdpY/HLnT/QvPr37iEND6o5sUPF71KX69wUe8jerWkttfaJwtIWkGy/VxUa Lex9WuG8o1aSQ/R81JuDI7LBh+rFY24Xb51j3fGyeG8rOnzzIH8vJBg2G3BCdGX/ oVY+jFlcApsZibJ0uTW5nazUYxvi+ynuhcJuhU/1XJ/NeI1lwjs494jOrZUVxpyq J0AeGQcpF8rLpFuIyrOM4Kujfo4rw1dQc8xMi/pWaU0ZPOVABy3cOX6wCPzdNGSu 3OtyEyjc+kOypyQWn68mw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1674523889; x= 1674610289; bh=7oqwYTxH7+1YMCy0EPEeYT5UTqu1C/ltlPNin0ojakY=; b=H U54nVGM5YMkjLAWHnYRl4BSe+5XrgFNJ/uSgAUSvk6SAad1w5WjCbfVMbT8WR2Pw 9e3hF2A4XgJyvVN1vjSlvT+qY2P1dr+X5euTUaDMN6Azy+uEcZMZm5iE8wDthpcu lZFAxG5foxi9dFTWj7P6PyDtsSI6kCcKg6yoZbqSmsyT6KZ5aZhSgE8+7ZE8/Pf2 VOwnzIukhd3AxSaJ2fyb9rp25Ik6FWMTNlN5THeHJSpZl1yeV5RZYWmxRZpSYSXf V7gVQJGa6TmjsQIy9RtA876dMAlabiFlIdwkqQFozfOgLrF3Wy6gLpjGd/rhN7Sw WuUPgZ0JOIIV2LAaLLfFw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:8DTPY_NdCK-IjynouQvVuSHhMwMHuc1wugSo7vrOKbUy6VshhTenbA> <xme:8DTPY59u8qjhW_rvCUCEF0-wXJAS0dCLFK-LFrnrHNcRzDc0XDwYZxajAVZe3s51D G-XxtXElCSrQuWbvQ>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:8DTPY-RLkJIcx2UiSLEVdf6GY11296cHajrp9Wq5xD1gHaoRGS5RcbYMYTKiagiGnJilcof1ynmHM0WlVJFQOjAMWtl8Vv7jRVPFHHt_hzjhaR5xVD0RQvpy>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudduledgfeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffvefgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghr khcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepvdefhedvieegjeetiefhffdtgfeihfevtdevudetffehudfhfeelheeiudff keeknecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluh hsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhho thdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:8TTPYzuUsv6k_nA5DM6niaKPz3OV7EN0BpwEg0p_poR9FaYTyKXWlA> <xmx:8TTPY3fj3e9sqCZUhurnmSCy-yXTwdErP5zJ6rpLOaEj5VU6-iaPdw> <xmx:8TTPY_1fceC8GMWnxQH_MFO5feDeLl-wX6re_9nHH0BBUhJAsjD37w> <xmx:8TTPY_HL8-srbCGRpz_E7H7O0-tCxjLRycL4ITUbj-ETUmwYnK3Phg>
Feedback-ID: ie6694242:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:31:27 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.300.101.1.3\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9obds85hyv-mUbOUqShOesbLWcm=SwT=ax_+hFEXhbDqUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:31:04 +1100
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3BA5C579-BB4C-48DA-9084-0BEC4E870B45@mnot.net>
References: <2070c8e0-98d6-7b63-77c3-550bcd661397@gmx.de> <8b547e17-1f24-ff1f-90d1-ec4c974de88f@gmx.de> <FEA9B22C-B3AC-48D0-B4AC-64BADB8E8F18@mnot.net> <a4cae48c-960f-0edb-33c5-19e01b7e4093@gmx.de> <CALGR9oZMYhB8MXZzJHjb1QM+x7f3w_bENDLDqr39+BR5=t5r3w@mail.gmail.com> <4e63a31d-1168-2736-53f1-13b80a03dd05@gmx.de> <262F3422-22EC-4AA6-803C-B45CEA8DAE87@mnot.net> <CALGR9obds85hyv-mUbOUqShOesbLWcm=SwT=ax_+hFEXhbDqUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.300.101.1.3)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=mnot.net), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=messagingengine.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1pK8A0-00EOgQ-Eh 45242f6381275c7d106d513fef1ee78a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: signatures vs sf-date
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/3BA5C579-BB4C-48DA-9084-0BEC4E870B45@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40706
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


> On 24 Jan 2023, at 12:27 pm, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think the problem is that you can't extend any existing field to use a parameter of Date type. You can't expect the receiver to know about the extension nor have the parser robustly skip the Data parameter that it doesn't care about. Constraining the Date type to new fields, or OOB feature negotiation, seems like a reasonable constraint TBH. Some text to call out the potential issues might be nice.

Fair enough. I think this is something roughly like (with more words) "Note that you cannot use Date in extensions to fields that were defined as Structured Fields based upon RFC8941, because recipients may not be using a Date-compatible parser."

See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2393


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

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status