On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > A new MIME type of JSON wrapped data similar to the rfc822 type. The content could be encrypted for example or just be the metadata.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
