IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 31 May 2007 12:13 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 1HtjWa-0004xh-H2; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:13:04 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtjWa-0004xY-21 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:13:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtjWZ-0004xQ-OX for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:13:03 -0400
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtjWX-000561-H8 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:13:03 -0400
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2007 14:13:01 +0200
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4VCD057029824; Thu, 31 May 2007 14:13:00 +0200
Received: from adsl-247-6-fixip.tiscali.ch (ams3-vpn-dhcp169.cisco.com [10.61.64.169]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l4VCCsDR008038; Thu, 31 May 2007 12:12:59 GMT
Message-ID: <465EBBC7.9030800@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:55 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=470; t=1180613580; x=1181477580; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Straw-man=20charter=20for=20http-bis |Sender:=20; bh=x9kOVRhtmZTJflmpKWoGCWcAoJWV1hkxJkA85icJfXo=; b=TgoMqFIbm1RGk5Z0lvdgRYQb5Jg0C1HtjnIBVsNV15yHmRlRR/MwlRJYGxCOAGMiBq9aCEJ8 72NmQpnrV+uGi4gUY1cHJ3uXEQVUlRt/gPkCycuYUzCmZmiH5+pURbhP;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, 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,
> 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.

If you do the errata and then we need any update to cover authentication 
- whatsoever - we end up with bisbis.  That's my point.

Eliot

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email