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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 05 July 2016 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBC512D0DA for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0Uap1vnmZr2V for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1A2D12D17B for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.123] ([5.10.171.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LhNwC-1bgHta3bc0-00mXhi; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:08:43 +0200
To: =?UTF-8?B?5aSn5bKp5a+b?= <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
References: <2DBE893A-434D-4B67-BF12-AEFBDE7A23B7@gmail.com> <32b9df1f-b61d-405e-d935-5d964d9acbb6@gmx.de> <TY1PR01MB0588EA2490634AD993244DF1A0390@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <084b1a6f-3d32-ef37-da7c-7ed6d958974c@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:08:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <TY1PR01MB0588EA2490634AD993244DF1A0390@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:6xV2A1Gr6ZvlZywXzOn9grYkhEfR+yvmGL/wIrGIOJ9YKsxxk2i QOxGvTmyVjdosJUVlNRMwuCdJ0/jiqHSvneyhyFuqSGOkoT8xGkbqBpfEcQEf89dA62uhVY LaKceamM9i5KFI7DjLFvHOk25rFmv1cOL4P17U6xkKFc3BktdGYTAwtYpeC2dWWPUcfySVJ yMXwGbLkqTqRuvw48ljcA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:4kCqX/Gijj0=:t6ZiUH6iAq3jXMhlmya1T8 yaOQW53DMNQ4uOA6E1XKJIGF9y+19LVQx09jECSlydHq58VjLQXpT4lyqIqT+qc4t0RNv14R/ n88JmRrW54tZdZBG3+zuplKUylvhqnLhz8Ue9tRKVvNnQgrZQ/eGSnqyBmxxnYv3mfRLxmqiY eMjVXV0ojTT+KZn42+Jq0TPsKU21hHihaepTuKw0Ksxz/e6sX50VEVnrQiBdD0IbKCTf+zAzH 78X1OhGsyyLYCZUxBpwh4uEo5I8HAVl/PbHxzXzwGKJdY5E0z5AuGVd+YAYzJ03fVmeUqWrFq /bo2VZ3IGAuPmvoELo7ogXnegHP+Qj3cOGz/k6F6MaoWxgRU2vHgV5T+0/qdl/g/vc05Ce1ug Md3tQR3E6OgJbQ/KHaV6etKFHg5ySslgddS566SOjz58xMS6jcMAdwOTm0mT3O27bxByLugcI siJw/fIjZsmorXIoYPhq65H1v2rpmlynAZMp3tR3l2kfNmqmwQobZRU6lBl+RNfhgrhRpAnY2 wh7hmdVXdRSJ4zUnaUDETyXRO8UMQ6hwJi+kDSHxcicn42S8T3rU38QWeUbBqDhGKuUNxax+N OyBOBaKtAdj4P3AaKRwpE5cvpBltNEog9LOdb9QMixgO9Hx/0hhaHJz3tY/zoGiwQpR0Td5Q3 wyquRS3FjPpVZF9hg0rdkvCjCfCuKG3UnGCtFOfMFhRimigj3e8HeglVOo2WmOKNueA9yF8Vu Zw08rEM2YdzzQYig685qorfMqZkSU1eUFtSCkrtZVEZGd6k8VM01w3Otk1gwC01mSfosHtFRv 2FftR33
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/Izxa57AKQTrb1_Du5gWsMJq6ctA>
Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
X-BeenThere: http-auth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:08:58 -0000

On 2016-07-05 06:24, 大岩寛 wrote:
> ...
> [3]
>> FYI: I'm in the process of revising RFC 5987, and that ABNF production
>> is going to be removed. Seems we need to coordinate here.
>
> Can you tell us some more detail about this?
> May be we also need to coordinate with the Chairs about the scheduling.
> ...

When I wrote RFC 5987, I put too much emphasis in being consistent with  
RFC 2231 and in the ABNF.

The plan for RFC 5987bis is that it'll just define the grammar for the  
field *value*. I'll stay away from defining and redefining parameters in  
general.

Best regards, Julian