- From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:39:05 -0500
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>, rlgray@us.ibm.com, HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 11:32 AM -0600 97-12-17, John Franks wrote: >On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, John C. Mallery wrote: > >> >> It has to provide a hash of the return codes and a hash of >> the entity to achieve its full potential. This allows client >> to know that you have the right entity body and it allows >> the client to know how the server processed the request, >> i.e. the entire transaction is authenticated. This point >> has been raised before on the list. I can't why it isn't >> dead obvious. >> > >Let me repeat: ALL OF THIS IS IN THE CURRENT DRAFT. And there >are implementations. Good. I'll go fetch the latest draft and update my implementation, thank you. Didn't realize there was a document past the RFC.
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 1997 09:42:30 UTC