- From: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:03:40 -0700
- To: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
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
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 03:04:07 UTC