W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Content-MD5

From: Laurent Demailly <dl@hplyot.obspm.fr>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:57:11 +0100
Message-Id: <9511031057.AA04690@hplyot.obspm.fr>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: Laurent Demailly <dl@hplyot.obspm.fr>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding writes:
 >  >>       o Title, Link, Base, Content-MD5, Content-Language, etc.
 > > Sorry If I'm completly off base but could this be changed
 > > into "Content-Checksum:". I'd rather not tie MD5 particular
 > > *algorithm* to the general 'checksum' *functionality*, (just in case
 > > MD6 pops out in few monthes for instance...) {Though I currently use
 > > MD5 as the algorithm currently}
So because there were a mere 70 lines document (headers dropped)
written in 1993 (Rfc1544 (hmm, reissued with almost no changes as
rfc1864 very recently)) *suggesting* the use of a *specific*
algorithm, for Email should imply that world stopped and that for a
new proposed protocol (http/1.1) you have to use the same buggy
specific definition ? No evolution possible ? No new ideas/fixes ever
allowed ?
And you make htpp/1.2 when MD6 or something else pops out ?
 > Using separate header fields for different
 > algorithms is just as applicable (and easier to parse) as any
 > parameterized generic header field.
Why not using Accept-Gif: Accept-jpeg:,... headers ? would be
easier... 

dl
--
Laurent Demailly * http://hplyot.obspm.fr/~dl/ * Linux|PGP|Gnu|Tcl|...  Freedom
Received on Friday, 3 November 1995 03:03:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:34 EDT