At 8:36 AM -0700 7/2/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:23 AM -0700 7/2/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
I don't see what the problem is: l= is the canonical byte count, and that's
just as true with bh as is was before bh was invented.
The question is, what string do you hash when l= is given? I am
interpreting the spec as that you has the string with the length
given in l=; are you reading it as you hash the entire body
regardless of the presence of l=?
No, the former lest l= mean nothing at all. I don't seem to recall
this being an
interop problem in any of the implementations we have now either.
Ah, good. It would be good to add a sentence about this to the spec, then.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to