W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Content-MD5 and partial responses

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:39:47 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Message-Id: <1248475187.31377.98.camel@localhost.localdomain>
fre 2009-07-24 klockan 20:26 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
> Just another point of data which has come up before:
> > HTTP/1.1 defines a Content-MD5 header that allows a server to  
> > include a digest of the response body. However, this is specifically  
> > defined to cover the body of the actual message, not the contents of  
> > the full file (which might be quite different, if the response is a  
> > Content- Range, or uses a delta encoding).
> That's the beginning of RFC3230, which is on the standards track.

I know, and I obviously do not share the same view of HTTP as RFC3230,
not only in this aspect, as I also tried to point out earlier.

But with the amount of damage already done to Content-MD5 I am fine with
deprecating it as historic if that is the seen as the viable solution to
this discussion, effectively removing it from HTTPbis with a mention
that there was a ambiguity in if this applied to the variant or the
message-entity (or watever to call it, before T-E) of 206 responses.

But I do not think that is needed to go that way as I would be very
surprised if any implementation could be found implementing Content-MD5
on the partial entity of a 206 response and not the corresponding 200
response. I would expect that the implementations that can be found all
implements Content-MD5 based on the corresponding 200 response.

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:40:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC