Are We HS2019 Yet?

Tracking adoption of current drafts of HTTP Signatures across the Fediverse.

Service	Library	algorithm="hs2019"	(created) & (expires)	Signature-Input	algorithm	(created) & (expires)	Signature-Input
Service	Library	Accepts			Sends
Mastodon 4.2.8	None	Partial⁵ - Issue	Yes	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Pleroma 2.6.2	pleroma/http_signatures	Partial¹	No - Issue	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
PeerTube 6.0.3	@peertube/http-signature	Partial³	Yes	No - Issue	rsa-sha256	No	No
WriteFreely 0.15.0	writeas/httpsig	No - Issue	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Pixelfed 0.11.13	None	Partial¹	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Misskey 2024.3.1	@peertube/http-signature	Partial³	Yes	No - Issue	rsa-sha256	No	No
Friendica 2023.12	None	Partial⁵	Yes	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Hubzilla 8.8.8	None	Partial²	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Funkwhale 1.4.0	requests-http-message-signatures	Partial²	Yes	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Plume 0.7.2	None	Partial¹	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Mobilizon 4.1.0	pleroma/http_signatures	Partial¹	No - Issue	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
Lemmy 0.19.3	http-signature-normalization	Partial¹	Yes	No	hs2019	No	No
BookWyrm 0.6.6	None	Partial¹	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
wordpress-activitypub 2.2.0	None	Partial²	Yes	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
GNU social 2.0.0beta0	None	Partial¹	No	No	rsa-sha256	No	No
lotide 0.15.0	hancock	Maybe⁶	Yes	Yes	hs2019	No	No⁴

¹ This implementation assumes all signatures use SHA256
² This implementation uses the passed algorithm if known (not recommended by the spec), but falls back to SHA256 if unrecognized, which technically works for current uses of hs2019
³ This implementation assumes "hs2019" is equivalent to "rsa-sha512"
⁴ Available as config option
⁵ This implementation assumes "hs2019" is equivalent to "rsa-sha256", which is not recommended but is technically compatible with current uses of hs2019
⁶ This implementation technically supports signature algorithm derivation, but given that it's the only one, this is not a standard