W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03.txt

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>
Message-ID: <7720.1476858421@critter.freebsd.dk>
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}
   {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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:56 UTC