- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:27:01 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
--------
In message <90ee7958-5697-23ad-6f52-060f58800067@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes
:
>In any case: this sounds like a band-aid. I think it would be good to
>discuss the whole parametrization of content codings...
I have been pondering the "only encryptions will need parameters"
comment somebody made some days ago, and I have a hard time finding
out why that should be true.
Why is it that encryptions cannot prefix their necessary parameters
in the wame way compressions do (see gzip header) ?
Or to be concrete: Why wouldn't this work:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Encoding: gzip, aesgcm
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
{magic marker}
keyid="me@example.com";
salt="m2hJ_NttRtFyUiMRPwfpHA"
{magic terminator}
[encrypted payload]
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:27:57 UTC