Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add message/mls MIME Type #577

Closed
rohan-wire opened this issue Feb 3, 2022 · 7 comments
Closed

Add message/mls MIME Type #577

rohan-wire opened this issue Feb 3, 2022 · 7 comments

Comments

@rohan-wire
Copy link
Contributor

@rohan-wire rohan-wire commented Feb 3, 2022

When MLS messages are transmitted over a protocol which supports Content-Type / MIME Type negotiation, signal that the message is an MLS message.

Because MLS messages are really a bag of formats today we should have a MIME type parameter which specifies the specific format included.

message/mls;format={application|handshake|welcome|keypackage|groupcontext}

@bifurcation
Copy link
Collaborator

@bifurcation bifurcation commented Feb 3, 2022

This seems like a fine idea to me. Could go as a section in the protocol spec, or as a separate (small) spec.

@bifurcation
Copy link
Collaborator

@bifurcation bifurcation commented Feb 3, 2022

Discussion on virtual interim:

  • Section or separate doc?
  • How do we handle versioning?
    • Internal to the protocol (field in MLSMessage?)
    • Field in the MIME type
    • Different MIME type per version

@rohan-wire
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rohan-wire rohan-wire commented Feb 3, 2022

  • I would prefer a short section in the protocol document.
  • I think Internal to the protocol is cleanest.
  • Likewise the format parameter becomes unnecessary if we add Welcome, PublicGroupState, and KeyPackage to wire_format (see issue #574 )

@bifurcation
Copy link
Collaborator

@bifurcation bifurcation commented Feb 7, 2022

@rohan-wire send a PR?

@seanturner
Copy link
Contributor

@seanturner seanturner commented Feb 7, 2022

Asking for friend: would we want to define (or use) a structured syntax suffix ala RFC 6839?

@bifurcation
Copy link
Collaborator

@bifurcation bifurcation commented Feb 13, 2022

@seanturner If you mean for multiple formats, no, we have only one encoding. If someone wants to re-encode the protocol as XML or whatever, a MIME type will be the least of their troubles.

@bifurcation
Copy link
Collaborator

@bifurcation bifurcation commented Feb 13, 2022

Fixed in #581

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants