On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Nils <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 12:21 am, "Anthony Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> thanks for bringing up this Nils. >> >> the IANA Hash and "Operating System Names" registry will both need to >> be updated. >> >> where do you think I should put the rec to at least support sha-1 in our >> draft? >> >> under "Client Implementation Considerations" section, or for the 2 >> "type" Attribute sections? > > It seems reasonable to bring this up in the type section. > Using "clients supporting verification SHOULD at least implement > sha-1." language seems appropriate to me. > Or maybe it should be phrased "the current secure hash function as > defined by NIST, sha-1 at the time of writing"? > For pieces it would be ok to use md2 and md5 (or even crc32 or > similar), provided that there is an overall hash.
I changed the type attribute for the hash element, but not type for pieces. 4.2.4.1. The "type" Attribute The IANA registry named "Hash Function Textual Names" defines values for hash types. Metalink Processors supporting verification SHOULD at least implement "sha-1" which is SHA1, as specified in [RFC3174] is that good? any other improvements? -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
