[wfc] Next: Checksum proposal (revisited)

[Arne Henden]

I have fairly strong feelings *against* checksums in fits files.
After handling several hundred thousand CCD frames, the only ones
I found corrupted were *really* corrupted and were obvious.
Files that are transmitted over sockets or networks can take
advantage of their retransmittal capability to handle transfer errors;
all hard drives are pretty robust these days, and if errors
are important, can be RAIDed.  So error handling should be at
the system level, not the internal file level.
   Adding checksums is just one more piece of baggage that a fits
programmer has to handle, and has very little value in the modern
world.  While it may be important to one subgroup, I don't think
a checksum proposal is appropriate for a general Standard.  This is
not to say anything about the quality of the proposal, just that
a solution valid 7yrs ago may not be valid today.
Arne

Arnold Rots wrote:
> My apologies, a message from Randy Thompson finally made me read my
> message again.  I meant to say November 22, not November 15.
> I.e., if no significant issues are brought up by November 22, I will
> call for a vote; however, if any significant issues are raised, we
> will discuss them and take it from there.
> 
>   - Arnold
> 
>