Re: FW: Digest mess
Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk)
Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:49:10 +0000
David W. Morris wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > > make sense to specify that the field carry the base64 encoding
> > > of a compressed form of the headers (using "deflate"?), which
> > > would probably result in a net savings over the original header
> > > sizes. But I don't think it's worth another food-fight over this
> > > detail.
> >
> > It's a shame we have come to this pass, but I'm beginning to think that
> > it is the only answer. Base64 is one answer, but wouldn't URL encoding
> > also be easy enough and more compact?
> >
> > If a cheap and easy to implement compression scheme can be used, then
> > why not? (In which case, I'd guess base64 becomes a good idea).
>
> In either case, imbeded LWS must be allowed to follow the spirit of
> possibly continued header values and headers which may be too long.
>
> Also, they encoding rule should probably be something like:
>
> 1. Compose the subset of headers to be digested
> 2. Combine into a single string with CR/LF between headers
> 3. Encode the whole string.
Isn't that exactly what Jeffrey was suggesting?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache