Having yet another HTTP Authentication and Signature scheme really isn't adding value to the world. It's too bad this couldn't model the Keystone token authentication API that OpenStack is doing: http://keystone.openstack.org/ Or say, heck, don't like OpenStack, even just using OAuth2 would be fine: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/charter/ It sounds cool, using SSH keys as your API signature, but really it isn't…
So when you say it's not solving a problem that hasn't already been solved, if you're talking about "the ability to sign a request" in the most generic sense, sure, it's already been solved N times.
Generally speaking though, in most of those schemes key management is an afterthought, and we didn't want it to be an afterthought. It's been solved by SSH, and that's what we wanted to leverage.; the point was not to reinvent the wheel, the point was to leverage an existing security mechanism.