IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RIP: Crypto-Key header field

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Fri, 25 November 2016 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A13A12962F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RV92DhKhI9kA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBB861296C6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cAKQu-0004Kh-R5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:37:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:37:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cAKQu-0004Kh-R5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1cAKQk-0002rz-Ks for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:36:58 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1cAKQe-00053N-Ep for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:36:53 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id a124so134650468ioe.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:36:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RlFmT1/KrZNYjK9ClalftS+FezKpo3XKZgYNDMg7RpA=; b=x1Y1oSlpB5dE1fHIJn8qEsH5tmhZYCs+KozfGHssLETxI451nbHlG9CfRlc4EqxXgN sypqRsVtD4JhjQ/QZR0i8ZbHnU5y4JbGqVPw/RASXaeWPi1+kp4Wvb79bOuNgi1NVD+h epzE3y65UAO3OnMiTlSHlT9R5WQlVBGyAFSFHf0XhBL7YUZVmfyHJHcQQrudj/XDiuwc /EPWxB67rW19CxXPms1T3HuAMIKOI4IMME65RkT/u+AWtAQ6Ix/lcP9WOao3ZNhEntyX 3l6wWplNX++wfanAvZ3DmQ9KwqOlPE8VYiTwlumdQEUt1WuejVDDpHm9mNwFgf7z0jFp K/cA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RlFmT1/KrZNYjK9ClalftS+FezKpo3XKZgYNDMg7RpA=; b=FQD2SB+59fcTUskYIVQtwsAaj/U2JKYhTnxITMaW6CdJILauOp8hPWKiNG5eSUscuH 4VL0BSSqaC6U8BX7PMEX2C13tb6kCp96CgQ/+EDFsywA+ez/JCCe3a3LKtjzmzl4DJpF yEqzZXaIPxxQlALDeXQ0PzoDXW5BDgGvSKD8FzLdHLrfba9T36rLDXHl95jvxcMJybuu UAU1c5vrM0tKubl1SXF/JvxPs/WrgUPomyqIwvUcxAPbjAp7DzrObR7Cfm0oEhLSupDj 8iPAAcbkAg3kdDzxCsVUkKtS6vLpwlxkgUHLquxFidYlk3Ml9gvaOfBUYF33Qj/hHc7A gVlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03z1PFHlWPbXZm9gk3uF+XT+UXAVsoxFenIncTJhjILlI0+sL4FIQc2mQDrpf8LwHv1Ub0QbvIgAoNbVA==
X-Received: by 10.107.18.208 with SMTP id 77mr8227437ios.195.1480095386362; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:36:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABkgnnXQ7jFX+U0Ziai_kmja740h-6MBmBG5vxNF5Tr2fpTX3w@mail.gmail.com> <41b1ccf6-32ff-c450-9f61-8f51feb99dad@gmx.de> <CABkgnnV4wtcnZBajJy0VCYXbTQ=LDjGuytz4iOzOLVvVHqB24Q@mail.gmail.com> <249e067b-7c37-9aa2-2937-2bfbbebd033b@gmx.de> <dd003ab2-323b-d617-29b8-c39eee8915ec@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CABkgnnVd+414QH8F7dMmmFmAd5S0cTXbUC12pQoapUdpoAYvZg@mail.gmail.com> <23699f01-1a0f-1b2f-edcd-c21dbce4d5a8@gmx.de> <CABkgnnVuS8qJH7THnsQPGYwooby7Hkn=wfv0jHDDkBL5z2Ko4w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVuS8qJH7THnsQPGYwooby7Hkn=wfv0jHDDkBL5z2Ko4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:36:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fq=0cnWxJxgz17P7TfYbaDLS7gETB90cfZpp-n8ihVAsEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eca92bcf3970542238ff3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=costin@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.083, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cAKQe-00053N-Ep d0833e1988d45d3ad9bd2a7f5a37e5b6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RIP: Crypto-Key header field
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP8-Fq=0cnWxJxgz17P7TfYbaDLS7gETB90cfZpp-n8ihVAsEA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33016
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Maybe use a bit to indicate binary vs utf8 ?

Costin

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016, 4:34 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 24 November 2016 at 17:20, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > Which?
>
> Webpush was considering using the field.  It's not final yet, but only
> because there are questions about how to signal keys elsewhere, but
> you can see a preview:
> http://webpush-wg.github.io/webpush-encryption/pack_key_hack/
>
> >> a usage that needs strings, then UTF-8 is available to them.
> >
> >
> > Which implies that those who define the use of dictionaries and the way
> they
> > are transmitted have full control over what keyids are used. Is this the
> > case?
>
> I don't see why not.  For instance, out-of-band can easily restrict
> this to UTF-8 (or if you get hit on the head some time in the near
> future, the special JSON UTF-16 with unpaired surrogates mess).
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email