Re: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification

> I also agree with PHK that if we add a new header field to specify 
> content coding parameters, it should be applicable to any new encoding, 
> not just Encryption codings (yes, that's just a naming issue).

> With that, I actually end up with something similar to one of PHK's 
> proposals:
> Content-Encoding: aesgcm, aesgcm
> CE-params: aesgcm;key="csPJEXBYA5U-Tal9EdJi-w";
>      salt="NfzOeuV5USPRA-n_9s1Lag",
>                   aesgcm
> ...where the only difference is that any content coding that *can* have 
> parameters MUST have an associated entry in CE-params.

This looks like good idea and is unambiguous.

Also matches to "h1_common_structure" on 

3.  HTTP/1 serialization of HTTP header Common Structure

So that is "list of named dictionaries" as Poul-Henning Kamp 
wrote. ☺

/ Kari Hurtta

Received on Saturday, 15 October 2016 06:11:17 UTC