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

Re: RIP: Crypto-Key header field

From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:36:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fq=0cnWxJxgz17P7TfYbaDLS7gETB90cfZpp-n8ihVAsEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Maybe use a bit to indicate binary vs utf8 ?

Costin

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016, 4:34 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 24 November 2016 at 17:20, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > Which?
>
> Webpush was considering using the field.  It's not final yet, but only
> because there are questions about how to signal keys elsewhere, but
> you can see a preview:
> http://webpush-wg.github.io/webpush-encryption/pack_key_hack/
>
> >> a usage that needs strings, then UTF-8 is available to them.
> >
> >
> > Which implies that those who define the use of dictionaries and the way
> they
> > are transmitted have full control over what keyids are used. Is this the
> > case?
>
> I don't see why not.  For instance, out-of-band can easily restrict
> this to UTF-8 (or if you get hit on the head some time in the near
> future, the special JSON UTF-16 with unpaired surrogates mess).
>
>
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 17:36:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 November 2016 17:37:04 UTC