Subject: Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses

From: "Eric J. Bowman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:11:37 -0600

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> An alternate approach would be to deprecate the Content-MD5 header
> itself, since MD5 is deprecated, other signature mechanisms are being
> worked on, and the conflicting interpretations of this header make
> interop difficult.
> 

There are a couple references to Content-MD5 remaining, which is
confusing now that no Content-MD5 section exists; I suggest removing
mention of Content-MD5 from the following, perhaps making a note or two
in the "changes from RFC 2616" sections:  p1 7.1.3.2, p2 7.4.

-Eric

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:32:08 -0700

Thanks.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:51:39 +0200

> in the "changes from RFC 2616" sections:  p1 7.1.3.2, p2 7.4.

P1: not sure - this is about non-modifiable headers. Does deprecating 
C-MD5 change this?

P2: indeed.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Eric J. Bowman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:22:03 -0600

Julian Reschke wrote:
> > mention of Content-MD5 from the following, perhaps making a note or
> > two in the "changes from RFC 2616" sections:  p1 7.1.3.2, p2 7.4.
> 

Maybe just add "(deprecated)" there?

-Eric

---

From: Amos Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:22:35 +1200

> Maybe just add "(deprecated)" there?

Since its deprecated, does it stay untouchable by updated middleware or 
does it now fall under headers which can be stripped for efficiency?

AYJ