IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 30 May 2007 21:20 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 1HtVay-0006Q2-H6; Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:40 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVax-0006Ps-42 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVaw-0006Pk-Qa for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:38 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtVav-0003qj-E3 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:38 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 May 2007 21:20:36 -0000
Received: from p508F99AB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.153.171] by mail.gmx.net (mp035) with SMTP; 30 May 2007 23:20:36 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/PPT0l033P8QAIOTVdzDqylVz1i40z9eFIhsK+xP 6DiIsgek/adG8O
Message-ID: <465DEA9C.2060508@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:20:28 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <465D987F.5070906@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Cc: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "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

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> For instance, RFC2617 needs a revision badly as well (for instance, 
>> wrt to I18N of usernames and passwords, and, as far as I can recall, 
>> certain problems with the definition of Digest Auth). IMHO; this 
>> should occur in a separate working group.
> 
> The HTTP auth model needs a lot of work.  Creating an update without 
> addressing it seems to me pointless.

Well, RFC2616 needs updating, so does RFC2617. Why does this need to be 
the same activity?

Best regards, Julian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email