Re: draft-ietf-822ext-md5-00.txt

Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Wed, 07 April 1993 00:10 UTC

To: James M Galvin <galvin@tis.com>
Cc: ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-822ext-md5-00.txt
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Apr 1993 16:35:02 EDT." <9304062035.AA04890@TIS.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1993 16:36:17 -0700
Message-Id: <5446.734139377@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>

> 1.  I'm guessing you chose to call the header field content-md5 so that
>     the choice of algorithm was explicit and it would not be necessary
>     to parse the value of the header into two parts: algorithm
>     identifier and value.

It was done this way on purpose.  Like content-transfer-encodings,
having a lot of content-mic algorithms would be a bad thing.  So, for
simplicity, it's better, I think, to have a single field.

> 2.  This document will ultimately require a security considerations
>     section in which it will be necessary to distinguish between the
>     service provided by this specification and the service provided by a
>     secure data integrity service.  For example:

I'll add a security considerations section.

/mtr

draft-ietf-822ext-md5-00.txt James M Galvin
Re: draft-ietf-822ext-md5-00.txt Marshall Rose