On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Nico Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:11:46PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > OK, but why not put all of this into the headers anyways? > > > > > > Well that is what I suggested in my Content-Signature work and that is > > > exactly how my code works today. But folk proposed introducing the > > > signature in the HTTP content segment and that forced me to think about > > > which approach is better. > > > > Your approach looks like a Transfer-Encoding to me. If that's what it > > looks like, and that's what it walks like, [and that's what we want,] > > then that's what it should be. > > > Umm, I designed the Chunked transfer encoding. A TE gives the length of > blobs. This is not a TE.
So it's a new MIME type of signed data? OK. > > I meant: why not use whatever JOSE delivered? > > Base64 encoding the content so as to be able to work out the boundaries. > Blech. That's what I thought. Base64 avoidance for bulk sounds good to me. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
