- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:28:59 -0700
- To: Guille -bisho- <bishillo@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ben Maurer <ben.maurer@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15 July 2015 at 10:13, Guille -bisho- <bishillo@gmail.com> wrote: > If corruption is still a concern (not sure if it is because https will give > us better integrity guarantees), what about an optional checksum? > static=<type>:<hash> like static=SHA1:###... ? At that point you are reinventing SRI. Which suggests that SRI is a signal that user agents could use, and might be all that is necessary.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 17:29:26 UTC