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

Re: New versions of encryption drafts

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:47:11 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVVJNvZHA+oJKD+ieHoM8aqZuW6n0HXNnx==4pji=JqEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
And I have now corrected that oversight.  I have also added text about
use of UTF-8.  It's SHOULD.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding/

On 22 December 2016 at 23:19, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh, I just realized that I didn't open an issue for the record size
> issue that was opened on the list earlier.  That means that I didn't
> fix that either.
>
> On 22 December 2016 at 16:33, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've just uploaded new versions of the two encryption-y drafts that I'm editing.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption/
>>
>> This captures the discussion on the list, which is really just two changes:
>>   - Coalescing on HTTP and with HTTP is now verboten.
>>   - The .well-known resource is much simpler.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding/
>>
>> This also captures what has been discussed, primarily the removal of
>> the header fields.
>>
>> I have not addressed the concern raised about the format of the key
>> identifier. I realize that some protocols are unable to handle binary
>> identifiers, but others rely on them.  There's probably some text that
>> can be added that will help here, but I'm not seeing it right now.
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 02:47:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 23 December 2016 02:47:42 UTC