[http-auth] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 01 September 2016 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: http-auth@ietf.org
Delivered-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A0112D958; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 05:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147273363289.10148.188400348872297119.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:40:32 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/RGD7QNppUhCsdkyKDcxDNWdMRj0>
Cc: http-auth@ietf.org, httpauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpauth-extension@ietf.org
Subject: [http-auth] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_dr?= =?utf-8?q?aft-ietf-httpauth-extension-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: http-auth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:40:34 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpauth-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The following disclarer is a little odd:

"The terms "encouraged" and "advised" are used for suggestions that do
   not constitute "SHOULD"-level requirements.  People MAY freely choose
   not to include the suggested items.  However, complying with those
   suggestions would be a best practice; it will improve the security,
   interoperability, and/or operational performance."

Both terms are only used once. I would recommend to remove the text above
and simply use MAY later in the doc (or not use MAY and leave the later
text as it is just without the disclaimer).

2) I agree that the section on username should point to the secturity
section to give a clear warning. However, I also don't really understand
why username is needed. If there is a good use case for it, maybe it's
worth to explain this as another example.