Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF
Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2022 23:16 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 77C84C1594BF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2022 16:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.752 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=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2TU_H7e7arFA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2022 16:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 31002C15948A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2022 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1nuMfs-0007Sl-VM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 26 May 2022 23:13:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 23:13:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1nuMfs-0007Sl-VM@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1nuMfq-0007Ra-RG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 26 May 2022 23:13:46 +0000
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1nuMfp-0006ux-HJ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 26 May 2022 23:13:46 +0000
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id a10so3103562ioe.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 26 May 2022 16:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gDzbJyAam0o4GFBFr68F9+J3L6EuSCAQ+2gJ101qhHQ=; b=LBsaMFF9dvBg3pgDI5e6nybV54bFEwKiJcul5Fw6RuOSPFa7V34/oAGnmLa+v7XrHT wRKQlUP7xTFu23Hr4epBrfOwNO6kEvpWA2LE05ESm66dvjnvKcmg4wUbXldACo17AtfW LkyOFynLfyNg/VebwqAKbMch6605dXQE9CD9eMKG8tQB8r6HQA4LzyqhEUbhdsBE91ha yv2v8RRnzci4O1ZAMD6W6r4qVbah1rsKiNfn8oBpIgDKbCQFzH0z6yOVZILRIm2tSCCJ zdgqJtd7j0NxFZ11ScBMjpdoMrIxON+9hxEjaVxkd2N6Bmp1VoEqvfX2lfkgaiFz2Ri8 AGVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gDzbJyAam0o4GFBFr68F9+J3L6EuSCAQ+2gJ101qhHQ=; b=bKmuyFMsHI/BCqsiirrgMYGbEu2+ZbR9AyGmxLRzc/11UIkrfJFJ4oDUB5UdyzwbiE qblsp96Cmb6tHB5SK8Rp+NYnRD5DNo4IftZG+cGED99XFixRFL/UZFxxNJGOqh2bIfto EBbi1zTVQMqhWG/kty1VBhC3ZG1+mmLod3IPRc+oTh4jfbD1pcAGtrvwTzRdoY2Lzkuz yix5y2sZ233heiBAfFPKVBUU/gmXkL7HjoLQ8A7q7DIU+x1s1tT/tEqU5jI4M7YyWxr7 QNP7eMOJoT+lku8Bi32Qb5rRgt0h++ci5O/6OPZn+mCyhLHjkZ5nnLtXsPRbbQwo7Vm1 Xk7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532z7u1PSh7tj0XW1n2zNFwyLCkzasUfZOQmbZAnKBQFiuOGDtHo ecth8Rx/oaXATB4/Y03/4g0oyxa88tOOWHFwJaGl/Q74fbw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyuNXL211ldi8ONUGmiIHQLqORBHGt9+fIHfvv2hDHXE73FXKGAWCGguPxPCVFWeO8AUq0g/9rMUO0DN+lRB0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:d8a:b0:330:b3af:bfc2 with SMTP id l10-20020a0566380d8a00b00330b3afbfc2mr5095724jaj.11.1653606814470; Thu, 26 May 2022 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 01:13:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHWAaoHAoSb3zzkzX40EGoyW2Mg90fuDJmcxQcTsiuPBtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e; envelope-from=robipolli@gmail.com; helo=mail-io1-xd2e.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=robipolli@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1nuMfp-0006ux-HJ b349a943f8bcc1a60a5b5265941de4d5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAP9qbHWAaoHAoSb3zzkzX40EGoyW2Mg90fuDJmcxQcTsiuPBtw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40048
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>
Dear all, after reading the HTTP Style guide https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#self-references I was trying to refactor RateLimit https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/ratelimit-headers/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers.md to remove ABNF and I am finding the document less readable than before. Looking at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures.md#creating-the-signature-base-create-sig-input I think that removing ABNF from there is even more complicated. Which is a suitable replacement for ABNF to be used in cases such as Message Signatures? While Structured Fields is capable of disassembling the structure of a field, it can't formally describe the specific content/format of a string. Kind regards, R.
- Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF Roberto Polli
- Re: Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF Mark Nottingham
- RE: Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF Justin Richer
- Re: Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF Roberto Polli