- From: <hallam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 22:14:13 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: hallam@w3.org
> Content-MD5 = "Content-MD5" ":" md5-digest > md5-digest = <base64 of 128 bit MD5 digest as per RFC 1864> No, you really should remove the claim to be per RFC 1864 since the spec as given has no connection with RFC1864 except in using the same hash function. RFC 1864 in sofar as it says anything states that the entity is canonicalized before the digest is applied. I believe that we have (rightly) decided not to introduce the canonicalization step. Therefore we are not doing the base64 of the digest "per RFC1864)" we are doing the base64 of the digest. >> MIME, the digest is computed over the entire entity-body, even if it > > may be computed No, Roy this is wrong the disgest IS computed. If the digest is there the value is MD5(entity) there is no provision to allow MD5(cononical(entity)). As specified I think that we are being given a pig in a poke. If one gets a Content-MD5 header with this spec one will not know what the digest was calculated on. Are implementations to be required to perform both checks on the offchance that canonicalisation was used? If people want to reuse an existing tag then they should accept whatever baggage goes with it. If that involves irrelevant canonicalization steps then so be it. If the spec diverges one should specify a new tag. Phill
Received on Monday, 1 April 1996 19:17:31 UTC