Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts

[大岩寛 <[e-mail]>]

Dear Julian,

> > Dear Julian,
> >
> > My understanding of your message is that you'll just define the value
> > encoding of I18n string, and all RFCs referring it must say, for
> > example, "the value of parameter foo will be encoded by RFC5987bis,
> > like foo=UTF-8''caf%C3%89 ."
> > Is it right? If not, please forgive me and skip the rest of my message.
> 
> Something like that.
> 
> (did you want to say "foo*" here?)

Dropping of * is intentional, to mean "someone only uses encoded values,
without the field extending mechanism by appending *."


> The problem is that there isn't a generic parameter framework. For instance,
> header fields differ in whitespace and error handling.
> 
> (I agree that it would be good if there was something like that, but that's
> a separate discussion)

(I agree it, as it was really tricky to write my draft regarding it :-)

> > The most important value of the current 5987 is that
...
> > denies almost all kinds of character encoding negotiations).
> 
> We'll keep the recommendation to mark the use of the encoding by appending "*"
> to the parameter name, if that's what you're concerned about.

Hmm, what a "recommendation" means for me is important.
Restructuring the definitions is no matter and OK for me.

It can be optional (as it is currently), but at least
I need to be possible to say implementers, showing printed paper of RFC5987bis,
"OK, it's the "common" way written here, so let's implement 
 this translation as a common utility function."
If it looks like "someone invented to append *, it might be interesting",
it's too weak.

-- 
Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.       Leader, Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
                                  Information Technology Research Institute
    National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
                      Mail addresses: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]