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. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
