Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06.txt> (Forwarded HTTP Extension) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Andreas,
At 06:41 11-07-2012, Andreas Petersson wrote:
How is it "random bits of information" when the specifications says
that it MUST be underscore?

As far as I can think of, the only thing that it will tell is that the
implementation is following this specification.
So, on the contrary; the more "degrees of freedom" that is given to the
implementation, the easier it would be to do fingerprinting.

I could use a hash. If the hash has to begin with an underscore, I have to reserve storage space for it. The ease for fingerprinting depends on how Section 6.3 is implemented (see reference I posted on WG mailing list about browser identification). I am ok if you want to keep the requirement.

Regards,
-sm


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]