Re: Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key

Julian Reschke <> Tue, 06 October 2015 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B862F1A0031 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wi1paSZQKDh9 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796AD1A0045 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjLNz-0003X2-Gk for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:06:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:06:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjLNx-0003Tn-2V for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:06:01 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZjLNv-0006lg-0s for; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:06:00 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Le64S-1aQMh93rrg-00pque; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:05:28 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <>, HTTP Working Group <>
References: <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:05:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:o3vgcUWBNcWYIzafiqSQzm8ODPdLmB+mMxqgF/QjVPFqP65/JkY XF8noufPvFbja9VqLiC8ayfs/UcnlJNmj5Sh2zjDR+evNALRb22hsBPRafV+CATFqKgzfVf flSrmbNR4/Gf5zwiJ8fRC2Fv13kQ0F2RIK83G405FBibEhxYZK+ug1ZvBvNnce7XQa9c0jJ VXi/qiB/UyQYdsHdX3rCw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hmef1E0PyEo=:svUy1FKeKoHxFtcamsobiq 2ElsDNQfY5uKFjTJjDBB5B93Hj7uz65bbhZtSmnBRJb3ImZWif06YW21p3P5cdc8xgjg7giar oA4PA5UO4mBGHJsRU/5P3OUjtNJrepymDOxfLymTOH7PFE7aWjj/yhpRc1bjiDIjdcO7Dl9aa 5ZeFu1wXHhgJQjgWHGIOrus1ygCfShWBd63JQdBMXAh16lfuNgTVI32IBdp0wV6bmRFl0bPzl mmfwV9cYdx67UXM+9CMD+6LVCpinW32n4YN3cTyfRBCcEEDBqEdIr5idPIj0KVIswdffmJ1G3 lY5iZbebrNQ/Wpdxri31utBZTsPShIkqoHdM93tHZJpQsGCFtJm0eN91M8OOaV3yz6Tg2KoD1 XvQKJgyjak335+A697oCuU+yJ7FgHpRUm2uG03gu1oj9dGwKj+6VDRy2HZiunbi39YJyn6fr2 sFt7W7njnvQUR55WBffI7ESf+5hKMwcqWOtAwkSNA06EMkHhcv/Do4qqqWuWwaaCnE5iMG9uK gsQS4ak+oxsBjkipw9BPQo/F1bXum/Ls69nihpjQ+e7fNwuDZEe60lIdUlZCEdQoPy4EI0bk1 +f9R8hKqcUXUFlJ48SOdRJoks289zBRE3yDpAQuA9NccxQZQAX//xjESVWNs70iZn2UGv9xVY lcmY8ItP7MH8UP57ANMhqJmAcRLpo4AMg5EMO95T7psgd1ZT1OCvU6tKz+QJ0EAfjr7vRVLJG 46SHPFBifxM8N05dVrBCN4nR+yeSlXNOfG6xf0bkBhn9jbq+o3CjSGpy2DZYPtWso0DZj+98j GyWew4s
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1ZjLNv-0006lg-0s 3117900071e8c6931fee0d043db3d2d6
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/30326
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 2015-10-01 07:22, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> We discussed this document in Dallas:
>    <>
> ... as well as on and off since then.
> Based on the feedback received and after discussion with our Area Director, I believe that we should adopt this document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard.
> Since I'm an author on the document, I've asked Martin Thomson to be Document Shepherd, to help judge consensus both of the CfA and during the document's LC, should we adopt it. He has graciously agreed.
> Please comment on-list; we’ll make a decision about adoption at the end of next week. The result of this CfA will also help us determine how to go forward with the Client Hints document.
> ...

I support adoption.

One interesting aspect of this document is that it sort-of asserts that 
there's a standard parameter-based syntax in header fields, which I 
believe would not to be fleshed out. Alternatively/Additionally, it 
gives us yet another good reason to discuss a new standard syntax for 
new header fields.

Best regards, Julian