Re: New versions of encryption drafts

And I have now corrected that oversight.  I have also added text about
use of UTF-8.  It's SHOULD.

On 22 December 2016 at 23:19, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> Ugh, I just realized that I didn't open an issue for the record size
> issue that was opened on the list earlier.  That means that I didn't
> fix that either.
> On 22 December 2016 at 16:33, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
>> I've just uploaded new versions of the two encryption-y drafts that I'm editing.
>> This captures the discussion on the list, which is really just two changes:
>>   - Coalescing on HTTP and with HTTP is now verboten.
>>   - The .well-known resource is much simpler.
>> This also captures what has been discussed, primarily the removal of
>> the header fields.
>> I have not addressed the concern raised about the format of the key
>> identifier. I realize that some protocols are unable to handle binary
>> identifiers, but others rely on them.  There's probably some text that
>> can be added that will help here, but I'm not seeing it right now.

Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 02:47:39 UTC