- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:13:28 +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 <7c879010-2145-fabc-9f97-d05de90e5147@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes
:
>> 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>.
Yeah, I thought about that, but the more I study it, the more I don't
see why HTTP needs to get involved in either activity.
All this stuff can be done with existing HTTP mechanisms, by defining
a new C-E which carries its own metadata in the body, like all other
C-E's, and the enourmous advantage of that is that it is backwards
compatible.
--
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 14:14:01 UTC