metalinkhttp draft comments

[Neil M.]

How is the describedby metalink mime type supposed to work? When we do
the HTTP GET it is to retrieve a single file. A metalink file can
describe multiple files. How does the client know which of the files in
the referenced metalink file matches the GET request?

Are SHA-256, etc. actually valid for the Digest header? The IANA
document doesn't list them:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

Can they be added to this list?

Neil

[Bram Neijt]

I was only aware of the Content-MD5[1][2] header actually. This header
contains the base64 encoded MD5 of the content after the header.

I didn't know of the other check-sum methods you point to in the iana
document[3], and I'm not sure those make "Content-SHA",
"Content-UNIXsum" and "Content-UNIXcksum" valid as headers.

My best guess would be that only "Content-MD5" in base64 encoded string
is valid.

Bram


[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1864.txt
[3] http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

[Anthony Bryan]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Neil M. <nabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How is the describedby metalink mime type supposed to work?  When we do
> the HTTP GET it is to retrieve a single file.  A metalink file can
> describe multiple files.  How does the client know which of the files in
> the referenced metalink file matches the GET request?

I guess it could be matched by filename, mirror, or hash.

> Are SHA-256, etc. actually valid for the Digest header?  The IANA
> document doesn't list them:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml
>
> Can they be added to this list?

the IANA considerations section (
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalinkhttp#section-8.2 at the
moment) registers em.

--
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
)) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads

[Neil M.]

We are using the HTTP "Digest" header for checksums, which allows you to
specify what type of algorithm is used (RFC 3230). "Content-MD5" is not
used because it is limited to MD5.

Neil

[Ant Bryan]

On Sep 29, 10:56 am, Anthony Bryan <anthonybr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Neil M. <nabbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are SHA-256, etc. actually valid for the Digest header?  The IANA
> > document doesn't list them:
>
> >http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml
>
> > Can they be added to this list?
>
> the IANA considerations section (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalinkhttp#section-8.2at the
> moment) registers em.

these registrations are now split out into a separate draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update

[Anthony Bryan]

this draft is in IETF Last Call now:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update/

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06781.html


Last Call: draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update (Additional
Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance Digests) to Informational RFC

* To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
* Subject: Last Call:
draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update (Additional Hash
Algorithms for HTTP Instance Digests) to Informational RFC
* From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
* Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:44:10 -0800 (PST)

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:

- 'Additional Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance Digests '
<draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-03.txt> as an
Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-01-01. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-03.txt


IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19094&rfc_flag=0

[Anthony Bryan]

following up, this draft was approved by the IESG a few months ago.

it's now in the final AUTH48 editing stage of the RFC editor. any comments? :)

http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5843.txt

http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5843-diff.html