Content-Digest proposal (was Re: Revised Charter)

Ok, You're right !
I'm for it, we are two
[if it has any weight]
who else, who is against (and why?, besides Roy)

(btw I've modified my implementations both clients and servers side 
accordingly, and it's nicer like that as It is shorter and it is even
now aligned with Content:Length :-)) 

Dave Raggett writes:
 > >  >   11) Defined semantics for metainformation
 > >  >       o Title, Link, Base, Content-MD5, Content-Language, etc.
 > >                               ***********
 > > Sorry If I'm completly off base but could this be changed
 > > into "Content-Checksum:". I'd rather not tie MD5 particular
 > > *algorithm* to the general 'checksum' *functionality*, (just in case
 > > MD6 pops out in few monthes for instance...) {Though I currently use
 > > MD5 as the algorithm currently}
 > I would myself prefer "Content-Digest" as this is neutral with respect
 > to new cryptographic algorithms for message digests that aren't based
 > on checksums.

dl
--
Laurent Demailly * http://hplyot.obspm.fr/~dl/ * Linux|PGP|Gnu|Tcl|...  Freedom
Prime#1: cent cinq mille cent cinq milliards cent cinq mille cent soixante sept

PGP [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] ammunition KGB
 strategic Uzi CIA