Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the changes, Martin!

On 2016-10-19 06:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
> ...
>> I believe we need to clarify the precise interaction between new content
>> codings and this header field. I'll assume any new content coding needs to
>> opt-in to use this field value as well, so it's clear how to remove entries
>> when unwrapping codings.
>
> I think that I have some text that will help.  I think that the answer is:
>
> Content codings that use the Encryption header field MUST always include a
> value for the header field when the content coding has been applied.  If no
> parameters are needed, then a dummy value is necessary to avoid confusion about
> which set of parameters applies to which content coding.  This requirement
> applies to uses of the `aesgcm` content coding, which does not need a dummy
> value because the `salt` parameter is mandatory.
> [97b3c12] and [67b65df]
> ...

"applies" -> "does not apply"?

In any case: this sounds like a band-aid. I think it would be good to 
discuss the whole parametrization of content codings...

> ...
>> Might be better to cite the slightly newer
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xmlenc-core1-20130411/>. In any case, please
>> add the W3C short name to the series element, such as in:
> [8ea4739]
>
> Interesting thing I learned from this: there are rules for "fixing"
> non-ASCII names in xml2rfc.
> ...

But they are unreliable...

Best regards, Julian