- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:43:02 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- 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>
On 2016-10-19 08:27, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> 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]
Because you might want to ship the parameters somewhere else. See
example in
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-08.html#rfc.section.3.5.3>.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:43:45 UTC