Re: Working Group Last Call: Encrypted Content-Encoding for HTTP

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:51:11PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 7 June 2016 at 17:10, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
> > I propose that we do not use URIs as keyid in any of the examples,
> > but rather plain strings with no overloaded context such as
> > keyid="key01294".
> Aw, you picked up on my terrible examples.  I think that I might have
> thought that the mailto: one was a good enough signal, or that the
> lack of an 's' in http:// was enough to make someone think twice.  But
> you are right, people just aren't always that smart.

People are even worse than that, most of them don't read the spec and
will copy-paste from blogs, and the "smart" among them will say "look,
I've read the standard and it is supposed to work this way" :-)

While we're talking about the form, I'm seeing that all examples involve
multi-line header fields, which are deprecated according to 7230#3.2.4.
I obviously understand that it's easier for the presentation. In 5.6,
it's mentionned that line wrapping is added for for presentation purposes
only. Maybe a sentence about this should be added at the end of "3.",
something like :

   Please note that all examples in this document use line wrapping for
   presentation purposes but headers fields should be sent as a single
   line to comply with RFC7230.

And then you can drop the sentence from 5.6.

Best regards,

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 05:34:41 UTC