 |
 |
I thought we all decided some time ago that a) Ignore unsupported checksums, b) On the first supported checksum return that checksum, c) If no requested checksums are supported return the default checksum (with the proper name), d) If checksums are not supported at all, return an error. I thnk (c) above is the new distinction in this recent thread. Right? On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, Paul Millar wrote: > IIRC (please double-check with the RFC!), the server is always free to return any checksum values (or combination of checksum values), independent of the client's request. So, I believe it would be fine for xrootd to always return an ADLER32 value. > > However, supporting algorithm negotiation would be good :-) > > -- > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/1707#issuecomment-1377548055 > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > > Message ID: ***@***.***> -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/1707#issuecomment-1377627666 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <[log in to unmask]> ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1