Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses

Thanks.

On 28/07/2011, at 11:11 AM, Eric J. Bowman wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> An alternate approach would be to deprecate the Content-MD5 header
>> itself, since MD5 is deprecated, other signature mechanisms are being
>> worked on, and the conflicting interpretations of this header make
>> interop difficult.
>> 
> 
> There are a couple references to Content-MD5 remaining, which is
> confusing now that no Content-MD5 section exists; I suggest removing
> mention of Content-MD5 from the following, perhaps making a note or two
> in the "changes from RFC 2616" sections:  p1 7.1.3.2, p2 7.4.
> 
> -Eric

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/