A request for this change is on the agenda for the next face to face
board meeting in Minneapolis, MN.

There have also been discussions of a) removing the value constraints on
CHECKSUMTYPE attribute so it might allow any value and b) adding in
something CHECKSUMENCODING? to say how the checksum is encoded (hex,
binary, decimal, base64 might be possible values here, I don't know).

FYI, 1.7 will out in a couple of weeks for community review.

-- Brian

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
|Behalf Of dloy
|Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:27 AM
|To: [log in to unmask]
|Subject: [METS] CRC32
|I'm new to the list so there may have been prior discussion about this
|topic that I missed - sorry if this is a repeat.
|We have a customer that uses METS and they already have a digital
|library with several thousand records that use CRC32.
|I realize that CRC32 is not the best checksum type but it is being
|What is needed to get this included as one of the accepted CHECKSUMTYPE
|David Loy