Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt> from Martin Thomson on 2014-09-11 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:30:57 -0700
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUPfpfkt89idk5tHb-We+npEdORtBQbMMdqcS_9d4fHYg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11 September 2014 07:16, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> At the very least, if we do this, some kind of integrity check (ie:
> a MD5 checksum or similar) should be included in the scheme, so
> that the client can check that the patch operation gave the right
> result.

Yes.  ETag doesn't cut it for this.

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 17:31:27 UTC