- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:02:05 -0700
- To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:05 AM, David Morris wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >>> I don't see any point in having an integrity check for a message containing >>> only a partial range. Surely you want to accumulate the entire entity by >>> piecing together all the parts, and then you use the MD5 to check the total. >> >> Imagine downloading a large file in many small chunks from many different >> servers. >> >> In the end, you might sit there with a huge file with a bad checksum without >> being able to pinpoint the single small chunk that had the error. So now you >> need to redownload the whole thing again, instead of just regetting the small >> chunk that contained the error. > > Fact of the matter is that the probablitly of getting one chunk in error > is very low in comparison with the origin servers being out of sync being > the reason for the error. Without an MD5 for the whole entity there is no > was to check the complete entity for correctness. > > It should have been clear from the beginning that the MD5 applied to the > whole entity. No, Content-MD5 is a MIME header field for message content. Always has been. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 20:02:35 UTC