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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On 18-Jun-19 05:18, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote:
    >>> 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.

    > I went and looked at RFC4648 for my own education, and then spent a few
    > minutes trying to design a Turing machine that can distinguish a binary
    > bit string from a base64 bit string. Fail. You can determine that a bit
    > string is definitely not base64 if it contains at least one character
    > outside the base64 alphabet, but not the converse. So it needs a
    > signal. Not having a signal would be wide open to malicious misuse,
    > IMHO. Indicating the length of the payload would be enough, I think.

So I conclude that we can't patch RFC7030.

We can drop the Content-Transfer-Encoding headers (and it seems that many
have done that anyway), but we are stuck with a base64 encoded payload for
the four end-points that 7030 describes.

We could create new end-points that are not base64 encoded, but that does not
seem that important.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-