Re: RIP: Crypto-Key header field

On 24 November 2016 at 17:20, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> Which?

Webpush was considering using the field.  It's not final yet, but only
because there are questions about how to signal keys elsewhere, but
you can see a preview:

>> a usage that needs strings, then UTF-8 is available to them.
> Which implies that those who define the use of dictionaries and the way they
> are transmitted have full control over what keyids are used. Is this the
> case?

I don't see why not.  For instance, out-of-band can easily restrict
this to UTF-8 (or if you get hit on the head some time in the near
future, the special JSON UTF-16 with unpaired surrogates mess).

Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 00:29:39 UTC