IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] Fwd: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update: Content-MD5

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sat, 20 October 2018 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403DF12D4E6; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNtbVOPNSoF2; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (unknown [66.159.242.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7557130DD8; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QYO1VLC8SW00EYN6@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1540070041; bh=958WMkV7nDFX6Glll6BaxVnlujmgA+UrommJ2rnC9KY=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=Z8r4Q138ewBTi0psN1ZiV0EG7vkcGyYixbA+0K6CqYN8dRmat6vVDW62qaxG0vUp8 IB4OThx8zbG7NHzaOp61pnRPhEIHTcKE+kpLhbo6jfM1kZaGneRPrk9qpDtetxuDK+ u7IQTy0yq22Z7mX0VkHspUof7byz40WFLvTH1eDA=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QYM8BK7VLS00BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: extra@ietf.org, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01QYO1VJX96600BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:08:13 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:52:36 +0100" <f0f09879-cf78-edbf-17e7-edc79034c9e1@isode.com>
References: <5BC59599.3000501@ninebynine.org> <f0f09879-cf78-edbf-17e7-edc79034c9e1@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/kkJtgT2UrdIZxgh8saa1WAf7KL0>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Fwd: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update: Content-MD5
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 21:19:07 -0000

> (Sorry for cross posting)

> Is there any interest in deprecating use of Content-MD5 for email?

Seems like a lot of effort for no real again.

The few implementations I've seen do interoperate, so AFAIK that's
not a reason for deprecating it.

Of course MD5 isn't cryptographically strong, but it's fine for a checksum,
which is  what RFC 1864 says it is for. (At the time the RFC was written I
argued for extending its use to crypographic applications and in the process
moving the algorithm from the name to the value to provide for algorithm
flexibility, but there wasn't sufficient interest.)

				Ned


> Thank you,
> Alexey

> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update: Content-MD5
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:39:05 +0100
> From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org

> Just to be clear, this is just use with HTTP that's being obsoleted?

> It's also registered as a MIME header.  The reason for obsoleting per
> RFC7231 appears to be inconsistent HTTP implementations, so I guess that
> doesn't apply to MIME/email?

> #g
> --

> On 15/10/2018 05:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > As discussed on the HTTP Working Group mailing list [1], we'd like to update the registry entry for Content-MD5 in HTTP.
> >
> > Proposed template:
> >
> > Header name: Content-MD5
> > Protocol: http
> > Status: obsoleted
> > Reference: RFC2616 (obsoleted by RFC7231, Appendix B)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > 1.  https://www.w3.org/mid/C94E5914-F5F0-46D0-BABB-D42EE45DF10D@mnot.net
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-message-headers mailing list
> > Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-message-headers mailing list
> Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers

> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list
> Extra@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email