IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [http-auth] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 20 February 2015 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89411A89E0; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRwrHm5TuEby; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2965C1A883A; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labhz20 with SMTP id hz20so7641164lab.0; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:47:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=u7/2mBTHw7UO300lL/LkTs3XK+s3CFyw24DhP1oY9EQ=; b=POUyb2znxdyqWdiZXcB8fEYhLvVmMcVvSIfxcpkJCSSfyIVNrY0KR5QP6q4vMYEtMy gILmo2zCdqkzopxAxud2Nvulgo2kN0/J37Biaq2oABlkQ27F0jbDKCkYeBNztnqexGYp g2nGpdnzpw7s2QHxIzQMWCX4Vzs7K01CeJwb86MYOw5u/SHyKUcfYR1yU03FsoSgaOiy PfYjRwBl2togyhdu6AuDAfHFiKJos0sp8KeVMnl5mNGkTJwn4Etptp0q9IUgh6ffn/9K LEqr3awu3hGAQN3n/xd6SYnmS++HDBqQgcOi4sn4MvH/fLMomFmLcuEnfF5MVLzaBaCi KfJA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.90.193 with SMTP id by1mr9295496lbb.113.1424454466613; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.167.101 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:47:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ68Kcg8CnKm6wZfwKdfpf=shCVdA4a49ayU2W8UfoA1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150218214927.31074.15996.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54E511BF.1070503@gmx.de> <54E51652.4050301@qti.qualcomm.com> <54E51843.1050307@greenbytes.de> <CALaySJJCzgkUNpONxFdv9-ZUD_Qxa_70rt+3g+U60Ctt80CMAg@mail.gmail.com> <54E58D9C.5020207@gmx.de> <CAHbuEH7rf72Dx0QiLgEjPZ7vCDDinEYZE-E9yTvABfSii635Pg@mail.gmail.com> <54E61331.7080807@greenbytes.de> <1goceat2c0sh1sifsuq6rv7u5bbth190vq@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <54E66703.50207@gmx.de> <1spceahm85je6hntfufprl183lam06bjgi@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <9FFC8911-ADD5-41F5-BC9E-5E78BAEB53CE@gbiv.com> <54E74195.7010503@gmx.de> <54E75C3B.7070605@qti.qualcomm.com> <CAHbuEH4V5OdKc1W48dL4Snxi7=xai5raYH7rdW_EigHypMonLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJ68Kcg8CnKm6wZfwKdfpf=shCVdA4a49ayU2W8UfoA1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:47:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH7diQdRPxo1i=wa_dx7N9_8Q4nwvQcxi_fhivv=EP8inA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133ae127b3662050f88a6f2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/Eh0LfMkjpG8A7z3qRD9SCVQSNUA>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, httpauth-chairs@ietf.org, "http-auth@ietf.org" <http-auth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [http-auth] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: http-auth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP authentication methods <http-auth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-auth>, <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-auth/>
List-Post: <mailto:http-auth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-auth>, <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:57:00 -0000

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
wrote:

> > Pete, Ted supported your stance and I'm fine with the MUST NOT as we are
> all
> > saying the same thing. This language is better than what was there before
> > and essentially means the same thing as MUST NOT.  Julian, is there any
> > reason not to have the MUST NOT as I don't see it.
>
> Julian's already given his reasons, and I, at least, don't see any
> point in discussing it further.  I think the text is fine, and is, as
> you say, effectively the same as MUST NOT, so at this point we're just
> talking about personal preferences in wording... which, at some point,
> ADs need to let go of.  Methinks it's time to let go of it.
>
> At some time it might be good to get community consensus on 2119 key
> words not being "conformance language".  I think this isn't that time.
>

OK, just being thorough for Pete's concern.

Thanks everyone!

>
> Barry
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email