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

On 23 June 2016 at 21:16, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Fully agree that there are no point of using a lower number than what
> RFC5116 says for AESGCM. However, the Encryption header is clearly not
> AESGCM specific, thus in future definitions we might se RS values that can
> be larger. That was my initial point here.


Ah, I'm being dense.  I see where you were going there.  Since the rs
field is only really usable at the point that you understand the
content encoding, can we not say that *for aesgcm* the limit is X.
Others might define a different limit.  A generic parser reads the
value as a string, so they won't be affected by limits.

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:12:20 UTC