- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:49:15 -0800
- To: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, discuss@apps.ietf.org, uri@w3.org
At 2:31 PM +0000 11/25/02, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: >I would like to publish the following Internet Draft as an Informational RFC: > > draft-feather-hashed-uri-03.txt > >The Area Directors have asked to me solicit comments from these two lists. >So any comments would be most welcome. Many comments, mostly negative: 1) There is absolutely no need to have two different hash algorithms. For this purpose, both are equivalent. Pick one. 2) Appendix A will lead to lack of interoperability. You haven't shown why canonicalizing (that is, changing) the pre-hashed URI has any advantage. 3) Which leads to the biggest question: where are the real-world uses for this? Which actual content providers have said "I don't want to reveal the real URL for the thing you are comparing"? If those folks exist, they could easily answer the first two objections. Quite frankly, this seems like a cute and well thought-out idea searching for a problem. 4) Editorial: this document doesn't follow <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt> and therefore will probably be (at least initially) rejected by the RFC Editor. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 11:49:31 UTC