W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: FW: Content-MD5 comment (was digest mess)

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:48:50 -0800
Message-Id: <5CEA8663F24DD111A96100805FFE65872038E9@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5135

> ----------
> From: 	Roy T. Fielding[SMTP:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: 	Monday, January 05, 1998 10:52 AM
> To: 	Jeffrey Mogul
> Cc: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: 	Re: FW: Digest mess 
> >One other reason: HTTP/1.1 includes the Content-MD5 header, which
> >specifies the use of base64.  Content-MD5 is optional (and perhaps
> >not even particularly useful?), but its use of base64 is presumably
> >a settled decision.
> Yep, a MIME inheritance.  It turns out that Content-MD5 is not useful
> at all for HTTP/1.1, since the combination of the error-free transport
> layer and length-delimited content is sufficient.
"Error free" and "ones-complement checksum" are not 100% commensurate. Plus,
the existence of proxies menas that the TCP "guarantee", such as it is,
isn't in fact guaranteed anyway.

The MD5 checksum is end-to-end, and much stronger than the transport

Received on Thursday, 8 January 1998 14:50:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC