IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for errata/clarifications to 2617

Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> Thu, 31 May 2007 21:39 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 1HtsMh-0007i5-Do; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:39:27 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtsKF-0006M3-Sm for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:36:55 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtsKF-0006Lv-JE for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:36:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtsIv-00059l-Kr for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:33 -0400
Received: from av8-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtsIu-0000ys-8F for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:33 -0400
Received: by av8-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 1411238587; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:35:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.102]) by av8-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2914383F8; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:35:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from henriknordstrom.net (81-233-163-21-no84.tbcn.telia.com [81.233.163.21]) by smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E4737E48; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:35:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (henriknordstrom.net [192.168.1.2] (may be forged)) by henriknordstrom.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l4VLZR3X018378; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:35:27 +0200
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for errata/clarifications to 2617
From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
In-Reply-To: <BE9343000CA9252766BBCA03@caldav.corp.apple.com>
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> <000c01c7a318$7bc243e0$7346cba0$@org> <E21FCD3A-D51A-4C06-B46D-3EA3ED54592B@mnot.net> <68fba5c50705302228v7f8ab278y50cf38c9f971f0a3@mail.gmail.com> <AF50DDD797FD9753B3C31D92@ninevah.local> <1180637848.4471.11.camel@henriknordstrom.net> <BE9343000CA9252766BBCA03@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-y2RxZ1cZNX3amrJ9NSDX"
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:35:27 +0200
Message-Id: <1180647327.5423.9.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on henriknordstrom.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
X-TMDA-Confirmed: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:36:55 -0400
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:39:23 -0400
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.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

tor 2007-05-31 klockan 17:16 -0400 skrev Cyrus Daboo:

> Well there is already RFC4559 and some folks in the security area were 
> working on tidying that up a bit more for a proposed standard.

Sure, but it doesn't make it follow the HTTP specs any better.

It's not very visible when reading the rfc until one gets to the
security considerations section, or alternatively study how the "scheme"
actually operates on the wire.

NTLM and Negotiate is not HTTP authentication schemes, it's something
completely different masqueraded to look like HTTP authentication at a
first glance, but with far going implications on the HTTP message,
transport and security models.

Regards
Henrik

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email