W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI

From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:20:17 -0400
To: "Panos Kampanakis \(pkampana\)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "draft-ietf-pkix-est\@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg\@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <8921.1560788417@dooku.sandelman.ca>

> Now, I don’t know how other EST clients would act. There are many out
> there by now that we can’t safely tell if they would act up.
> The commercial and enterprise CAs I tested with interoped fine with
> the libest client and they were not all sending the CTE field. They
> payload was base64 though.

I didn't read this well enough before.

So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the payload
is now assumed to be base64, regardless.

This suggests that we can not use the CTE header as a signal.
One has to assume base64 encoded values for the RFC7030 end-points.

Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Received on Monday, 17 June 2019 16:20:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC