Subject: rs parameter in encrypted content coding

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 03:29:39 +0900

James opened this:

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/274

I'm close to pushing a new version based on what we discussed at the
meeting.  This would seem to be an open issue.  Here are the choices:

1. what we have now, rs = record without authentication tag
2. what James suggests rs includes auth tag
3. something else

My original hope was to avoid having any potential values that were
invalid, but we already got there with padding (rs=0,1,2 are all
invalid).

Personally, I don't find the lack of generality to be problematic, but
I agree that the choice is a little arbitrary.  I'd be interested in
hearing what other people think.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:42:17 +0100

> hearing what other people think.

I don't feel strongly about it, but I think James' argument is good. So 
+1 on 2.

Best regards, Julian