Re: signatures vs sf-date

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 01.12.2022 18:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> Currently the signatures draft relies on structured fields as defined in
> RFC 8941 - that is, without the date type we are currently working on.
>
> We need to make a few decisions here:
>
> 1) Should signatures *use* the date type in the field(s) it defines
> ("created" TS)?
>
> 2) When signing parts of a SF shaped field, should it support RFC
> 8941bis in some way?
>
>
> 1) would require delaying the signatures spec until sfbis is ready - I
> don't think we want that, unless we can finish sfbis *really* quick (can
> we?)
>
> If we do *not* wait for sfbis to be ready, should we add some text that
> would allow implementers to make use of sfbis-shaped fields?

FWIW - I've been working on the minimal changes to extend my SF
implementation to support sf-date. My test suite incorporates the tests
from <https://github.com/httpwg/structured-field-tests> and now fails,
because there are tests expecting an sf-date shaped item to be an error.

This sort of confirms that we really need to figure out what the
expectations for users of SF (be it implementations or specifications)
are - is support of sf-date an extension you need to opt in somehow?

Best regards, Julian