--On tirsdag, november 29, 2005 00:03:03 -0700 Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Monday 28 November 2005 23:40, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
This means that we will not have a backwards compatibility issue with the
installed base if we change the format of the record, but *will* have a
procedural compatibility issue if we don't keep the property of "you can
know the expected content of the record without fetching it".
Yup. My only objection to changing the hash algorithm is that it means
a rev of the document that could cause us to go through another wglc or
ietf last call (as opposed to editorial changes, which presumably would
not). Otherwise, while I don't think it makes any difference, it's
otherwise fine to use SHA-256 instead of MD5.
After reading the docs, I don't think it makes any difference either.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf