W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: ID for Immutable

From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:12:15 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <201610281512.u9SFCFmN023418@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>: (Fri Oct 28 17:50:16 2016)
> the notion of integrity hashes have failed in the past (notably md5)..
> separable from immutable imo and would rather not tie that anchor to its
> fate.

That why I wrote "Several immutable cache controls are invalid if they are result
of same hash-function" implying that hash-function is detectable
from result of function (Either by size or something like multihash
https://github.com/multiformats/multihash).

> > So that immutable does not have effect if result of hash-function
> > does not give same value that what is value of immutable
> > cache control.
> >
> > Several immutable cache controls are invalid if they are result
> > of same hash-function.

/ Kari Hurtta
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 15:12:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 October 2016 15:12:52 UTC