IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 12 June 2007 11:31 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 1Hy4aa-0000rM-T1; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:31:08 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy4aY-0000fW-Mz for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:31:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy4aY-0000dg-Ce for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:31:06 -0400
Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net ([216.86.168.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hy4aW-0005e8-4J for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:31:06 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [216.145.54.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5305193C; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <20070608081032.GA12039@nic.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8FEE5444-50F1-4575-9AA3-626C2A03474C@mnot.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Image-Url: http://www.mnot.net/personal/MarkNottingham.jpg
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:30:57 +1000
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
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 08/06/2007, at 6:10 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>
> 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.

My experience is that it isn't adequate for even those purposes, in  
many cases.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email