W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:43:02 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <7c879010-2145-fabc-9f97-d05de90e5147@gmx.de>
On 2016-10-19 08:27, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <90ee7958-5697-23ad-6f52-060f58800067@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes
> :
>
>> In any case: this sounds like a band-aid. I think it would be good to
>> discuss the whole parametrization of content codings...
>
> I have been pondering the "only encryptions will need parameters"
> comment somebody made some days ago, and I have a hard time finding
> out why that should be true.
>
> Why is it that encryptions cannot prefix their necessary parameters
> in the wame way compressions do (see gzip header) ?
>
> Or to be concrete:  Why wouldn't this work:
>
>    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>    Content-Type: text/html
>    Content-Encoding: gzip, aesgcm
>    Transfer-Encoding: chunked
>
>    {magic marker}
>    keyid="me@example.com";
>    salt="m2hJ_NttRtFyUiMRPwfpHA"
>    {magic terminator}
>    [encrypted payload]

Because you might want to ship the parameters somewhere else. See 
example in 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-08.html#rfc.section.3.5.3>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:43:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:43:49 UTC