- From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 18:02:06 -0800 (PST)
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Note: the net result of the above is that the digest is > computed on the content that would be sent over-the-wire, in > network byte order, but prior to any transfer coding being > applied. I basically agree with Roy about this section -- the simpler the prose is on this point, the better. However, there is still one problem remaining: The use of the term "network byte order". It is wrong to use this term in this context. Network byte order refers quite specifically to the ordering of bytes in network address information. It is not only nonsensical to talk about a generic sequence of octets being in network byte order, it is outright incorrect, as there may be media types defined with embedded network address information in them that isn't presented in network byte order. The bytes ungoing checksumming are in whatever order the media type puts them in for transfer of the content across the wire. Ned
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 1996 18:13:52 UTC