Re: Registering Content-MD5

the plan makes sense to me.. thanks!

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:25 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> WFM, although we should include the section in 7231 for convenience.
>
>
> > On 11 Oct 2018, at 11:18 am, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 10, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> In <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/93>, we noticed that
> while RFC7231 talks about deprecating the Content-MD5 header, the change
> didn't make its way into the registry, causing some amount of confusion.
> >>
> >> Is there any objection in the working group to asking IANA* to update
> the Permanent Message Header registry with:
> >>
> >> Header name: Content-MD5
> >> Protocol: http
> >> Status: obsoleted
> >> Reference: RFC7231, Appendix B
> >
> > Hmm, I think it should be
> >
> >   Reference: RFC2616 (obsoleted by RFC7231)
> >
> > to be consistent with the Status.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>