Re: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification

Martin Thomson <> Sat, 15 October 2016 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97941296D4 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.497 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=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87rDI0tPVQQ5 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6304C1296D3 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bvLaG-0007rm-QT for; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:48:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:48:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bvLaD-0007r5-5v for; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:48:49 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bvLaB-0003nV-R4 for; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:48:48 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id m5so87913589qtb.3 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FDndUXuhL0yo8ECCgnP+94Ef1+7TW1ILSMTF1zspKB8=; b=pOHkryoPVOKS6W9ExjYhP8Qb4ZMnbL6BKM+y4HBzgYHm+7nvUNmFILJg7acJQbWK6W Z79HBB2Utx/EfLtk7piWMXw8lCmDONYBbbY5xWiLaP3+MX+HQqpg+hv/yr7yHy4wsQha q/ViOGAr5pkVQj5rgM6nXBvac3KULN74NRc7yisNqa/S5QvIWxLjUykE/vY+K4pBdd82 omaiiafT4yGPqqYLyFqDw/llSvANPYIJOsl3Lk1YIFytSdkGXc+8uRWNKkwOtrUFqK3w Txc4EkZ//OVwkpjyYJw6sWEKj74gBp7GUu2r6sDKgV7cYF2JAFEvNEcYVDTd4VZ6OCjd /gfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FDndUXuhL0yo8ECCgnP+94Ef1+7TW1ILSMTF1zspKB8=; b=I3c7GHSNilMEAKOBB362vIqJz7uDBWGXpdTPMGdbOKydr0GkhAeiCCaEPOjmmKFeod 8vurtEDE8L9++JNvLFl17Xati68FOcAUMFGiLmEg92E1s3aYZSJzS7Ixt16RvvV6r4gH QDpGnEjOMbS9BN8CQd6+DPHg+Ku1wbJNNnSmbFYnacaYWmF3h7xFSMB+3Y3M2d0BziZ/ cEs7kvcGzyCYwtid7BRtoKfKlEU6LejNhsvHm5khw0o8eM9eMhmB3w6Ft4+BVmZ0SFcI grNfV7eSIVPEQ+3VpxQpv4MiEXb6KI5gSZs9hVbmJGrFwwaS1runODq6fTHZ9qGJ3TdL WoYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmivWUaRtUA7+taxGSPX6Bnxdz4486mExOrfS8ilkGCcA9aV9oEraJ8JM8MWvyaFsRGhSe86ie/ZGkJDw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p39mr16481276qta.32.1476524901769; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:48:21 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: Kari Hurtta <>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <>, Julian Reschke <>, Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.268, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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: 1bvLaB-0003nV-R4 1f97854f3e1241a22cd841d32a1a2221
Subject: Re: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32600
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 15 October 2016 at 17:10, Kari Hurtta <> wrote:
>> ...where the only difference is that any content coding that *can* have
>> parameters MUST have an associated entry in CE-params.
> This looks like good idea and is unambiguous.

I think that I will need to find a solution to this, and I think that
Julian's (originally phk's) suggestion to put the content encoding
label at the head of each value is a great one in light of this
feedback.  However, maybe we can dispense with the notion that there
is a generic need for content-encoding parameters (and thus avoid the
name change).

I will work on a proposal when it's not late, the weekend, etc...