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

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-04.txt

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:16:21 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWQRNYn1N5mj7v5BULJR4hL=U9WadLJh-QhzQuoZ5Dp2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 November 2016 at 01:39, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> In general I'd like the examples to be a bit more verbose - spell out the
> record size and salt (previously the salt was in a header field), and maybe
> mention what padding was used (the second example uses two records, where
> one has 0 padding bytes, and the other has 1 -- you really have to
> implement...).

I've gone through and carefully checked the examples and updated them.
They should now be correct.

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/259

> Which leads me to another thought: it would be good to explain somewhat more
> when padding would be useful. In particular, if you write a library that
> implements an encoder, what would be a good way to specify padding? Having
> the same padding in every record probably wouldn't be good, right?

Padding is hard to provide recommendations about.  I will try to find
some way to provide some guidance, but the generally accepted view is
that padding is hard.

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/260
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 03:16:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 November 2016 03:16:56 UTC