- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
- To: patrick@psbarrett.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com
- Cc: mbishop@evequefou.be, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8188, "Encrypted Content-Encoding for HTTP". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8621 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Patrick Barrett <patrick@psbarrett.com> Date Reported: 2025-10-30 Rejected by: Mike Bishop (IESG) Section: 3.2 Original Text ------------- HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Length: 73 Content-Encoding: aes128gcm uNCkWiNYzKTnBN9ji3-qWAAAABkCYTHOG8chz_gnvgOqdGYovxyjuqRyJFjEDyoF 1Fvkj6hQPdPHI51OEUKEpgz3SsLWIqS_uA Corrected Text -------------- HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Length: 74 Content-Encoding: aes128gcm uNCkWiNYzKTnBN9ji3-qWAAAABkCYTHOG8chz_gnvgOqdGYovxyjuqRyJFjEDyoF 1Fvkj6hQPdPHfNE6ZBBGizjWQMll3XVvzJ8 Notes ----- This is the same issue as Erata ID 8620 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8620), but for the next example. This one I'm less sure about. The RFC never explicitly says whether the final padding delimiter is required or not, but, by my reading at least, does strongly imply it is required in several places. Assuming the final padding delimiter is required, this example should include it. --VERIFIER NOTES-- See thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/httpbisa/7Qxw6sKj4kZGnyyGWQBbYjYDxNc/ -------------------------------------- RFC8188 (draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-09) -------------------------------------- Title : Encrypted Content-Encoding for HTTP Publication Date : June 2017 Author(s) : M. Thomson Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : HTTP Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2026 13:46:39 UTC