IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 08 June 2007 08:10 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 1HwZYP-0007Sa-Me; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:41 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HwZYN-0007SJ-5T for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwZYM-0007S9-6y for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:38 -0400
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwZYJ-0006nu-Tb for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:38 -0400
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id E01FB1C0101; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:10:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0CD1C00F1; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:10:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD83558ED1E; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:10:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:10:32 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Message-ID: <20070608081032.GA12039@nic.fr>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46682FC5.5030204@gmx.de>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
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 Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:18:13PM +0200,
 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote 
 a message of 14 lines which said:

> In the wild, most authentication isn't using RFC2617 anyway.

Any data here? IMHO, this assertion is not true, unless you limit to
big e-commerce Web sites. For instance, HTTP-based Web services use
2617. Also, 2617 is typically the simplest way for a small and rapidly
setup Web site, even if it does not have the visibility of Amazon.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email