- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:45:29 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-09-11 19:30, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 11 September 2014 07:16, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> 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