Ben (and now cc'ing the main list since I hear 'extensions' is going away),
On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Ben Adida wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 5:02 am, John Kemp <[email protected]> wrote: >> How about Content-Encoding and Content-Length then? > > I can see the argument for content-encoding, so I would support that > one as it could lead to misinterpretation of the body. I think > content- > length wouldn't make a difference, since it's just a hint regarding > what comes next, right? Isn't that 'hint' often used to determine the size of a buffer used to hold the content following the headers, or to constrain the number of bytes read by the recipient? > > >> What spec.? ;) > > :) Even if it's an unofficial spec, the body hash extension write-up > is already very useful. I'd love to be simply compliant with it, > rather than "well, I'm using body hash extension but tweaked cause I > am paranoid." Are you suggesting that the signing of these headers be included in the body hash extension spec. itself? Regards, - johnk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
