IETF Logo Mail Archive

[http-auth] AD review of draft-ietf-httpauth-extension

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 01 August 2016 02:02 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3492512B060 for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Isu2UdL9kLvW for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (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 EE66E12B05E for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n129so89434999vke.3 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8MUTtzJwtwcu/wC4seJTcK/s3CTBzIYSN3jAfrvfCss=; b=NysxJ+bpBAeIJr9QPPkbVSoeAugOJTE6p1JoesITaZiLm9wqlkNXH1AxNk3S6zG52k Cra+zrhS9rjnyQ+DqjOtNumWBUOG4HNAj78gnS0uAQRqhjFKcFTmtGDbLGkqnpheInXp W4sZ+NS1cT8XCdHnYyT8GZ1wPUpEkZ7/yUMc07ErNbQFGqM/Ogn1kJiBV3GaL0UdJhzC Y6q9Xj+VUFEQ/EjiEX7s20MkJV6plYcPTJPUeTWRARGIgwX0IyYPZWoeaekkHciu7Ha9 LDR3acVDCyZXp3Ag8TqxjV5Pml7G6CT5erTK4XXn0XvW/Kj5CaIcgFzunVweq0vIkDwI h4iA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8MUTtzJwtwcu/wC4seJTcK/s3CTBzIYSN3jAfrvfCss=; b=mW9G1o2L2Fa7Z10UdQYSqz0GcQPxxv90Oyz/okodffvaa3oMTNZ0ac9m77jhbUSvO4 VqGJqnOGFRd4+qf4hdJmgHKZBNsnn3Kw4HFUTWZlBPwClqEYsmq+9wwQTjkJBJkLBhSM lCVZpzLndhW//3rqk8aVZJJJa4otf3tMBt6o8ndHsFh13VnwGfJTn9tqgbrvuDcWg7Vv 39ILjjICaKE6MeEhuLE6LJHwq+Ca8NZoawahcA/m7WgifON1AcyWW4V81HQx+rCGPnL4 bEdYFUO9VFxF5c9JraHhCxn/7KOW02m8WdXMaeg6HHi3M9xVqZOP23AHH+00clbkFSQ8 mJmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouupNMVlZaJfaObPmOSswcn+vZN/MPwkZUjrcEKFJa4TTekJxHpo5q1VQFBg5IK3Dyrcn6EDpahhPe+bdA==
X-Received: by 10.31.177.139 with SMTP id a133mr24441862vkf.151.1470016934983; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.37.104 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH59MVKFPpeaF=3J3M-qUVVXzEiQsy9zE=2o1qHr-eHbzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "http-auth@ietf.org" <http-auth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/Wg2-3876I1Y5AQS6AkZzl9XBbYY>
Subject: [http-auth] AD review of draft-ietf-httpauth-extension
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 02:02:17 -0000

Hello,

Thank you for your work on the experimental draft,
draft-ietf-httpauth-extension.  The draft looks very good, I just
would like to pint out one nit:

Nits:
Section 4.2
   The default behavior for clients is implementation-dependent, and it
   may also depending on authentication schemes.
s/depending/depend/

I'm not sure if I will have time to review the other 2 drafts early
this week.  If I can't, is it okay to put this in last call ahead of
the others?  This may mean that this draft is on the IESG telechat in
a little over 2 weeks and the others may be on the following.  Let me
know if they should proceed as a set and I'll put them all on the
telechat a little over 4 weeks from now.

Thank you.
-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email