- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:10:46 +0300 (EEST)
- To: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
> 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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kamp-httpbis-structure-00#section-3 So that is "list of named dictionaries" as Poul-Henning Kamp wrote. ☺ / Kari Hurtta
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2016 06:11:17 UTC