Re: Couple comments on Subresource Integrity

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Trevor
>
>> 1) Why does the content-type need to be specified in the link?  Why
>> not just include it as input to the hash?
>
> I believe this is because the existing RFC already uses the syntax.
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920#section-3.1


Hi Devdatta,

What does the RFC 6920 format give you compared to a simple
algo-specific attribute like sha256="base64...", and then hashing the
content-type followed by a separator char (";") prior to the data?

The 6920 format adds verbosity, parsing, and having to read a 20-page
(?!) doc.  What's the benefit?


Trevor