W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: ISSUE: transformations

From: <rlgray@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:28:25 EST
Message-Id: <199808131528.LAA26516@rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/335
** Reply to note from Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> Wed, 12 Aug 98 16:37:56 MDT

I agree with your suggestions, which is why I didn't quote them.

On the topic of what to do with Content-MD5, you pointed out (around
last December I think) that one use is to detect packet-splicing errors
on ATM links (where the TCP ones-complement checksum is not
sufficient).

This, combined with the transformation issue, leads me to think that
there could (or ought to) be a distinction between hop-by-hop and
end-to-end message integrity checks (MICs).  I would think that if
Cache-control: no-transform is present, one would use an end-to-end
MIC, otherwise a hop-by-hop MIC could be used.

Richard L. Gray
will code for chocolate
Received on Thursday, 13 August 1998 08:32:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:23 UTC