- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:29:16 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > I wouldn't go to such extremities, but at least I think that we're just > facing a layering violation. Only the contents have to be encrypted so > that the caches cannot use them, while the transport remains unchanged. > So a new scheme is not appropriate for this, a Content-Encoding would be > much better. User agents would be configured to know that content- > encoding XYZ requires a deciphering key whose ID is presented in the > header itself and should have been retrieved via another channel. > > Example : > Content-Encoding: aes-ctr-128; keyid=0x34751806 > Cache-control: no-transform This would require changes at the intermediaries. It would also require a mechanism to link keys to IDs, which is non-trivial given the same-origin policy, multiple browsing contexts, subresources, etc. > This has the benefit of working out-of-the-box without affecting > existing intermediary components. It would seem to me to require slightly more effort than the scheme approach on this front. (We did actually consider something like this.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 23:29:39 UTC