W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <5411FBD9.7050103@gmx.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-09-11 19:30, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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.

I've been toying with the idea of defining a replacement for Content-MD5 
(clarity on 206, hash algorithm agility, maybe a conditional header 
field, potentially consistent with the SRI spec).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:46:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC