I changed it to this for now The "metalink:url" element contains the IRI of a file. All IRIs contained in each metalink:resources element SHOULD lead to identical files.
looking a bit more, maybe this should be defined under <file> The "metalink:file" element represents an individual file, acting as a container for metadata and data associated with the file. or <resources>, The "metalink:resources" element acts as a container for metadata and data associated with the listed files. It contains one or more metalink:url child elements. It can also contain one or more metalink:metadata child elements. because we want this to include <metadata> (anyone come up with a better name? :), that is a torrent or metalink listed in <metadata> won't be the same file as in <url> but will eventually lead to it if you use that <metadata> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Anthony Bryan<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Peter Poeml<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> There is one thing in the Internet Draft that I'd like to bring to our >> attention. Section 4.2.18 sets up a a strong requirement: >> All IRIs MUST lead to identical files. >> >> While surely this would be the intention, in practice I know more >> examples where this either isn't the case, and albeit attempted it is >> hard to assure. >> >> Content verification is there to help -- one of the purposes of metalinks. >> >> It might make sense to put this in a different way. >> >> Without any content verification being done (well, it is optional!), it >> is a relatively hard requirement to make. When a content delivery >> infrastructure reaches a certain scale, it becomes difficult though, as >> we know. In particular this is true for collaborative mirror networks >> formed by volunteers, where, in fact, the referenced IRIs might be >> outside of the control of the content provider at all. (Security comes >> into play here as well.) > > the current text is lacking, I'm glad you brought it up! at the least > it should be something like: > > All IRIs under each "metalink:file" container Element SHOULD lead to > identical files. > > because we don't want ALL the IRIs under separate <file> elements to > lead to identical files. > > yes, MUST is too strong. the point is that the by design, IRIs that > are included in a metalink SHOULD lead to identical files. > will metalinks contain IRIs that aren't identical files? yes. do we > want it to no longer be a valid metalink if a mirror network is out of > sync & a file isn't identical? no > I'm just trying to document the design purpose, that each IRI is a > valid way to get the same exact file, under perfect conditions. > > clients should weed out files that have different sizes, & reject > chunks that don't have the correct checksum, etc. a metalink > generators will attempt to include IRIs that point to identical files > to be most helpful, but we want to protect against accidents or > malicious people that would possibly want to lead to incorrect > downloads. > > maybe content verification should be required for future versions (as > in this version for the IETF)? even tho it is extremely important, > some lazy implementers :) did not want to add support. as of now, I > think only TheWorld browser does not support checksums. it's clear > that most implementers see the value in it. > >> I would tend to make this a SHOULD, for practical reasons. Also, the >> text could/should expand both on the implications. > > care to throw in some expansion text? :) > >> Alternatively, would the following be an idea? >> All referenced IRIs SHOULD lead to identical resources, if the >> Metalink includes a "metalink:verification" container with at least >> one "metalink:hash" element. All referenced IRIs MUST be identical, if >> the latter is not the case. > > If the Metalink Document includes a "metalink:verification" container > element with at least one "metalink:hash" element, all referenced IRIs > SHOULD lead to identical resources. > If the Metalink Document does not include a "metalink:verification" > container element with at least one "metalink:hash" element, all > referenced IRIs MUST be identical. > > I don't know, do you think that is necessary or better? > > -- > (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] > )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads > -- (( 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
