Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> An alternate approach would be to deprecate the Content-MD5 header
> itself, since MD5 is deprecated, other signature mechanisms are being
> worked on, and the conflicting interpretations of this header make
> interop difficult.
> 

There are a couple references to Content-MD5 remaining, which is
confusing now that no Content-MD5 section exists; I suggest removing
mention of Content-MD5 from the following, perhaps making a note or two
in the "changes from RFC 2616" sections:  p1 7.1.3.2, p2 7.4.

-Eric

Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 18:12:09 UTC