IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 14 June 2007 07:50 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 1Hyk5k-0005Ei-TV; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:50:04 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hyk5k-0005Ed-7l for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:50:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hyk5j-0005ES-3n for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:50:03 -0400
Received: from bortzmeyer.netaktiv.com ([80.67.170.53] helo=mail.bortzmeyer.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hyk5h-0001Az-Df for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:50:02 -0400
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id EBBD5240828; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:49:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by fetiche (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43F741818D; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:40:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:40:19 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Subject: Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Message-ID: <20070614074019.GA3013@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <6AE049B9045C00064222693F@[10.1.110.5]> <p06240871c28dd59e7371@[10.20.30.108]> <46682BC9.9050504@gmx.de> <46682E06.7030603@cs.utk.edu> <46682FC5.5030204@gmx.de> <20070608081032.GA12039@nic.fr> <8FEE5444-50F1-4575-9AA3-626C2A03474C@mnot.net> <466F1B3B.3040409@qbik.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <466F1B3B.3040409@qbik.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.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

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +1200,
 Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote 
 a message of 38 lines which said:

> my experience also is that it is extremely rare to encounter public
> web servers that use any HTTP auth mechanism.

We do not live in the same world, then. I worked today on a program (a
del.icio.us link checker) which use it. Many Web APIs use this
mechanism. 

Unless if, by "Web servers" , you mean only "Web servers for
interactive human usage".

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email