Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-04.txt

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 03:21 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 6B38F1294F9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 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, 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 7EKVfeoqup0l for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
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 8917F129851 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1m2t-0008TA-Uq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:16:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:16:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1m2t-0008TA-Uq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1m2o-0008Dp-C7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:16:54 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c1m2i-00071J-2M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:16:49 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x190so2006129qkb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ERZcRr9WWEajJNOJoJHGfb9NewaMA7hGd1puHfyN+mk=; b=jyojfEjbETP3J3QetQmVkUV/RfhAsTYkv6LfXgc4nV/aOwoXa+yLho11u6c8HHk3Jv GsNar8tk3LOFvrDnRzrQnRztE16DPEYzLKi3BU8KbERJ203AdgLbHBP1yqXplL8v38dX 9zfObqnH1ftqgx0yeVTL7qr9VqnDKbZ4R1+zfFav/JNJBx5cKX9sq4CCWDtSfPPsWVkp 4c6/SN0W4tNAoD08CmjMjAM1LF1e6V8ktU3Ia6/nC9h33QUbu7qEq520HMM+eaPS70CF Wz1gEG6XPu4TjpgLlX5l+KR1/gS6RLeVDb5rODsKI62Q4Zwwmzim1hLLD18eINTeuJP5 bzLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ERZcRr9WWEajJNOJoJHGfb9NewaMA7hGd1puHfyN+mk=; b=hWoqyYoyfro4lZ5KlDqSe1pV0sXvSw20pzh8eVC8XV8jsPRTUc9otIIMiTr68Huye/ 9EOL7BI+b4ybZ1nP0GpugpL882gFDbAYBOH3BWwe5sPJK7JmBW8Rt9bu5u0DUcIB1Dxb DX1isuv8GbYr7PGXEEK3u3/jf3WloNMxP1k8Lz7nt9xQgBDnMGv2hM50+zOqjBPW1q8/ 3kGWYOF//v6CqjOxhklKKN6NtUMB+0VCx3E4/vHqF1tpFslFoahJVZuI4nspq97Sxr/p 3VhQ+GtL1aQVxf85Rr2N24+uhkkKEzmU09UvhC+HJ/4e7/UkNAA2S/n8n8taXEPn3M+U 2IDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcxGN50hs7XYDcLNdJMb2BPMc1G9aSNYMc62928BT4P8kpcNuaWbPGsvrrIYHBLsPqgFZ5oDacelJbY/A==
X-Received: by 10.55.184.68 with SMTP id i65mr1237931qkf.5.1478056581937; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.7 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9de93353-e86d-9d57-6ea9-a802d18c7305@gmx.de>
References: <147795659288.23177.2369869731985386138.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9de93353-e86d-9d57-6ea9-a802d18c7305@gmx.de>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:16:21 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWQRNYn1N5mj7v5BULJR4hL=U9WadLJh-QhzQuoZ5Dp2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.179; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c1m2i-00071J-2M d538413d7554ce0aa8666bb7c5b58690
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-04.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWQRNYn1N5mj7v5BULJR4hL=U9WadLJh-QhzQuoZ5Dp2A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32803
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>

On 2 November 2016 at 01:39, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> In general I'd like the examples to be a bit more verbose - spell out the
> record size and salt (previously the salt was in a header field), and maybe
> mention what padding was used (the second example uses two records, where
> one has 0 padding bytes, and the other has 1 -- you really have to
> implement...).

I've gone through and carefully checked the examples and updated them.
They should now be correct.

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/259

> Which leads me to another thought: it would be good to explain somewhat more
> when padding would be useful. In particular, if you write a library that
> implements an encoder, what would be a good way to specify padding? Having
> the same padding in every record probably wouldn't be good, right?

Padding is hard to provide recommendations about.  I will try to find
some way to provide some guidance, but the generally accepted view is
that padding is hard.

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/260