On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:52:44PM -0700, Ant Bryan wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 12:14?pm, Peter Poeml <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > how about this for <resources> > > All elements contained in each metalink:resources element SHOULD > lead > to identical files. That is, each metalink:url element should be > an > alternative location for the same file and each metalink:metaurl > element should provide metadata to retrieve the same file in > another > way, such as a peer to peer network. > > and this for <url> > > The "metalink:url" element contains the IRI of a file. Most > Metalink > Documents will contain multiple metalink:url elements, and each one > SHOULD be a valid alternative to download the same file.
Note how MirrorManager publishes "alternatives". https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-f11&arch=i386 <files> <file name="repomd.xml"> <mm0:timestamp>1247688502</mm0:timestamp> <size>4514</size> <verification> <hash type="md5">2c8abd317221727b24fc19b89da21be6</hash> <hash type="sha1">e91b4ec7539bc1fcb417da8be0d6e7935e78ecfb</hash> <hash type="sha256">cd41440df407c5f0637a1eaf99f1917f9c64dce1f51a74a2e54fc9f6c56873da</hash> <hash type="sha512">606bf517e68a37607f596d813b57e2a31f811eb95c15e23adb3d186d8aa192bf7d591259d4a1b0fdee73e7a6087fd7aaf6848a4e6e0c759bed0eb2c38f8b9f00</hash> </verification> <mm0:alternates> <mm0:alternate> <mm0:timestamp>1247280239</mm0:timestamp> <size>4514</size> <verification> <hash type="md5">173c926efe310d666e63ae2388822c79</hash> <hash type="sha1">cb2f30a2948225940b46662eddded78e88e31303</hash> <hash type="sha256">f35bc001c109399c87e9f5d39414cf23b172036fb910cf2e792287354a9de409</hash> <hash type="sha512">9309a3a2b1d069dbbc5651d8a86e12949118c9ecf3737e4551aa772e70aef5252e3d396e671cd5e6f3c9b0c9e79a8d0c5e8d64994487f1508d20bbbb5e082b2c</hash> </verification> </mm0:alternate> </mm0:alternates> It presents multiple <mm0:alternate/> sections which are still considered valid. These alternates let the mirrors be slightly out of date (in our case, up to one week), and still be considered "ok"; thereafter they wouldn't have content that would match. -Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
