|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Needed to manage instance digest and to ensure integrity of binary messages transfer
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: IPR disclosures (ietf.org)
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This document replaces draft-mogul-http-digest
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC 2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, N., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet/
Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and/
Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2049,/
November 1996./
/
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement/
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[3] Laurent Demailly. Re: Revised Charter./
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q4/0165.html./
/
[RFC 2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,/
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --/
HTTP/1.1.", RFC 2616, June 1999./
/
[RFC 2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,/
Leach, P., Luotonen, A. and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication:/
Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999./
/
[RFC 2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail/
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",/
RFC 2045, November 1996./
/
[7] Nevin Heintze. Scalable Document Fingerprinting. Proc. Second/
USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, USENIX, Oakland, CA,/
November, 1996, pp. 191-200./
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/nch/www/koala/main.html./
/
[8] Merriam-Webster. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary./
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA, 1963./
/
[RFC 3229] Mogul, J., Krishnamurthy, B., Douglis, F., Feldmann, A., Goland,/
Y. and A. van Hoff, "Delta encoding in HTTP", RFC 3229, December/
2001./
/
[RFC 1864] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field", RFC 1864,/
October 1995./
/
[RFC 2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA/
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998./
/
[12] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Secure Hash/
Standard. FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS PUBLICATION/
180-1, U.S. Department of Commerce, April, 1995./
http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt./
/
[13] The Open Group. The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 - 6/
Vol Set for UNIX 98. Document number T912, The Open Group,/
February, 1997./
/
[14] Dave Raggett. Re: Revised Charter./
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q4/0182.html./
/
[RFC 1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April/
1992./
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
