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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 05 July 2016 11:39 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 EF04812D0C9 for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:39:06 -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 vNR8PvPfQEtc for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:39:05 -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 EA36612B050 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.123] ([5.10.171.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLR30-1bJqj90BBi-000a6q; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:39:01 +0200
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <2DBE893A-434D-4B67-BF12-AEFBDE7A23B7@gmail.com> <32b9df1f-b61d-405e-d935-5d964d9acbb6@gmx.de> <TY1PR01MB0588EA2490634AD993244DF1A0390@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> <084b1a6f-3d32-ef37-da7c-7ed6d958974c@gmx.de> <A4419C58-1777-4A03-9390-6C5EA4412BF2@gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <2ae31156-2a49-3cf4-9ba2-36bb8d24abb1@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:39:07 +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: <A4419C58-1777-4A03-9390-6C5EA4412BF2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:WB9bk6lJEFfwDAfbt0U4kfx65KIIw9/lBHfxUxMmHIyLM1OFhJX ZmC038r1TTrNHCtWJn//wIQI5n+SxWKCV7Va2MWTxoIQ4w/EDc7+wtqtDRT1tSmMYbxvTwi OB3gLr/Nz7qwlp9DfWl9WaVK65xYhiJBUTOe3O+t0MYAKHEy5mS2wweQqK5RxwtmiiclA6h LZ24cW2r2wwqkWs4SRcHg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:BftBqdjuuLA=:Tn2iZvdHOiG8cPfihlZqZd eosTPF2kaQlDLIMhjimNGeJAphn5yJhCwTf2Ky7/QFKeWeuFtbspRTX9/Af7zaA4QEPdhJHZ0 WAwA5eV1Vt8Xx4nI5UYTf+A8cr4fCYBc6FE3Y7s0bIffXZ5GyNZCbEBaoEZndI3LZUkI72d44 gBWwMVNWSZg4V7T3/PEH+DtX9Uxv/rsIhbDe4ZyFEJONVPuX1Wsokd2CdDmXEviq3noOTiCw6 6FP6UAco0KnowfYXKzfpKSJSaGJiHzcaxKQkP/HXUoMIrCT/s6h1WVqFh8pYoBAEJMCjj5LN4 D+eiUqfOzLSysZIIRRP2FmxCLL66fRcLRIIYONHt+nhAh0LvHWvaX4atIjseF4w2muSbVx4Nk g/xCa+YjOuFrhK6M+7KTLOj3+gP0E84gMTuKpYcDHkpHbIPxzaeyPE3bicobGxKV3ESXzKT4t Bu9hbdzn7k0KxYWCz3BsF0yS/Nsj3WXEhvGmKtK/JD5It04oMzN+41y/NXDrx0CuLIxIKXqsM k/ZWcjH6uvf/mwKeD5MaCZX3HbEll2NWnZZrtixuYcUm4Riq8W8kgYz+rcLa3rYvEqMd4QPSb HvFk07QBLDOmb5AZZ0sHrTKD9E8fQNoSvUvK5ycMltfGK/3a/+jxV8YKV0SNnSchgZtroKTQa f55n5LvzGsK1KDyikxIcBYUiM9kLWpZGXdLgyynEZIkRxprKlmYkF8fp6TYSzKbvYC+mckeTY deudLZHLmPEPWJm0Hr5HqD2g+Vs80QIzK/fF0TTjEWchvkNMY6At1Ezdhgx8TT/ff1Vmxuv32 Pe4iaPo
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/biqpWixV-j1dGHjdYsqBxCjh7AY>
Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
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 11:39:07 -0000

On 2016-07-05 13:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I’m not sure I follow what kind of coordination is needed here. IMO the -extension document is ready to go to IETF LC (after the authors make the necessary changes you’ve already discussed). I think it’s going to be past the IESG before 5987bis is ready. Do you see any need to make this document depend on 5987bis instead of 5987? Will making this change require any changes to the ABNF in the document?

Yes, IMHO it would require changes.

> If not, I think we can proceed with a reference to 5987, and then when 5987bis obsoletes 5987 it will still be fine. Am I missing something?

Technically it would still be fine, but it would have a normative 
reference on an obsoleted spec.

I think it would be better to coordinate, and have this new document 
reference 5987bis.

Best regards, Julian