IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 31 May 2007 15:27 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtmZ6-0004sM-Hk; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:52 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtmZ4-0004sH-Uv for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtmZ4-0004s9-LL for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:50 -0400
Received: from shu.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtmZ2-0003Tg-E6 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:50 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shu.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8A11EE1D8; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new with ClamAV and SpamAssasin at cs.utk.edu
Received: from shu.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bes.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4suUZ0p7uOe0; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by shu.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4EC1EE1DD; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:26:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <465EE917.3010308@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:26:15 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <p06240843c2833f4d7f2f@[10.20.30.108]> <465D9142.9050506@gmx.de> <465D987F.5070906@cisco.com> <C1E6F3CB-49C6-4C0F-955A-3D69D26987C6@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705310312560.7945@ubzre.j3.bet> <465E7B2F.8010304@cisco.com> <35A8B74A-E78B-4A8B-85C1-7FCE72A7CE49@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <35A8B74A-E78B-4A8B-85C1-7FCE72A7CE49@mnot.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
OpenPGP: id=E1473978
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Considering the scope of 2616bis is errata, and explicitly not new
> features/mechanisms, I'm not sure I follow. Do you think that
> designing new auth mechanisms will expose new errata?
>
> My initial thought is that it's much more likely that it'll require
> who new features, or no changes to HTTP at all.
I think it likely that some minor enhancements to HTTP will be needed by
a new authentication method.  However I don't know that this would
require an update to the base HTTP specification; a separate document
might be sufficient.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that a separate working
group for HTTP security is needed.  This work should not need to be
critical path for httpbis.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email