Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>

On 2014-09-11 19:30, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 07:16, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
>> At the very least, if we do this, some kind of integrity check (ie:
>> a MD5 checksum or similar) should be included in the scheme, so
>> that the client can check that the patch operation gave the right
>> result.
> Yes.  ETag doesn't cut it for this.

I've been toying with the idea of defining a replacement for Content-MD5 
(clarity on 206, hash algorithm agility, maybe a conditional header 
field, potentially consistent with the SRI spec).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:46:12 UTC