Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5904)
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 30 March 2020 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B7F3A0867; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 c0W9u_8Fvish; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EBEB3A07C5; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F983897B; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF0D16B; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: spasm@ietf.org, stefan@aaa-sec.com, justin.cranford@entrustdatacard.com, kent@bbn.com, "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, "Fries, Steffen" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>, Panos Kampanakis <pkampana@cisco.com>
CC: pkix@ietf.org
Reply-To: spasm@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8CEE9B1C-42A1-4601-9E6D-B9786D947B67@cisco.com>
References: <20191112204840.35508F40737@rfc-editor.org> <20200330145229.GW50174@kduck.mit.edu> <8CEE9B1C-42A1-4601-9E6D-B9786D947B67@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:27:58 -0400
Message-ID: <9922.1585589278@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/2yZWo9OjvwS3genzxyH3XKpeTFM>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5904)
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:28:07 -0000
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: >> Option #1: Change all references from Content-Transfer-Encoding to >> Transfer-Encoding. A caveat is that "base64" has a different meaning in >> HTTP (no CRLFs) vs MIME (includes CRLFs). > For interoperability purposes in the erratum, we might advise that both > should be tolerated, but one needs to be preferred. Adding Max, > Michael, Stefan, and Panos who have implemented, for discussion. Unless someone with a deployed product comes forward claiming that they accept non-base64 encoded content when there is no CTE header *AND* they have interoperated with some other product, then the feedback from implementers that I was able to reach last spring is that they: 1) didn't insert CTE, (and ignored it), because it was junk. 2) base64 encoded all content. Changing it to Transfer-Encoding does not make sense. {This is in the archives somewhere} >> Option #2: Remove all references to Content-Transfer-Encoding and >> base64. Responses would be transmitted as binary. This allows the >> response to be transported more efficiently without base64 size bloat, >> and it allows optional use of Content-Length header so the response can >> be parsed more efficiently knowing the length ahead of time. >> > If this is the direction, then I would hold for update because more > work would need to be done, and it would not be interoperable with > existing implementations. This would be an incompatible change on the wire. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5… Eliot Lear
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5… Michael Richardson
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5… Sean Turner