"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU> wrote: > Aside from the issues of duplication and the history of Content-MD5, > nobody has presented a valid design reason for defining a generic > header field. [...] I doubt this is an adequate reason, but let me identify an issue. (BTW, I take no position regarding Content-Digest vs. Content-XYZ for XYZ in {MD5, SHA, ...}.) If there's more than one digest header, we have to define what it means if a message contains more than one, and they disagree about the integrity of the message. Example: I have headers Content-MD5: xyz Content-SHA: qrs The recipient computes the digests of the message and finds that the MD5 digest matches xyz, but the SHA digest does not match qrs. Now what? I imagine we assume the integrity to be compromised. With a single Content-Digest header, there's no ambiguity. Dave KristolReceived on Monday, 6 November 1995 07:36:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC