Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18-Jun-19 05:18, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote: >>> So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the >>> payload is now assumed to be base64, regardless. This suggests that >>> we can not use the CTE header as a signal.
> I went and looked at RFC4648 for my own education, and then spent a few
> minutes trying to design a Turing machine that can distinguish a binary
> bit string from a base64 bit string. Fail. You can determine that a bit
> string is definitely not base64 if it contains at least one character
> outside the base64 alphabet, but not the converse. So it needs a
> signal. Not having a signal would be wide open to malicious misuse,
> IMHO. Indicating the length of the payload would be enough, I think.
So I conclude that we can't patch RFC7030.
We can drop the Content-Transfer-Encoding headers (and it seems that many
have done that anyway), but we are stuck with a base64 encoded payload for
the four end-points that 7030 describes.
We could create new end-points that are not base64 encoded, but that does not
seem that important.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
