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

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 July 2016 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.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 9222C12B050 for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:26:18 -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 U83Dp7VBq62w for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 C838212B019 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id a66so148325741wme.0 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yzawFNGi2PtW0LwOH/7w3n7jX36+rwcpaOEmxpt8s44=; b=Z/03M06JjrKXqLS99JEkdODEMCWK9YjuEtST4JbY3kL+55nbGWvN21oY1DTueV+TNS p6oRG99y+rvyHwQ+U2nLrBIe1ERCoee4fdyLFO7qp9j8Jl8nnaRI/9HjS5K5jow8Bcut IGGpEQRcaCQbR2mlWyUoFgD1I00qRPAUIdnmBPEEgpHCYCTrpWXjaKdsKuY05FO3xusN 6cbAo8uw1IWERR2/5enKIh7BStXQeTS1N0owjaQ4IF7NIBtYnbvAuR+6BEj9glLEp2sK Vc3wikUfU6JUY0k4DFGJfHNdVIdC9+1Cxs/dtLdQGgmAkXqpgqWKmQZYOkVj90YNBQIu P2MQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yzawFNGi2PtW0LwOH/7w3n7jX36+rwcpaOEmxpt8s44=; b=EgXnqhUJzEjQekiE2UMcZp8rPkRQhq1XlCoEiyFANEjXOIx8cjMn8ECwasnsBXSo/8 G1rXDTZEerT1ibyAnlU/vVMrKzuDZhzyO7Otj4PSOBQr649NnqTgQU1Gn6efgynrfXs8 9w0+spRU98MHTxJQzRAE5e9ralZPv8rWLCAW9YkHidqVyNIkqVRXro+BoybdslKRGapr lrzKu53a1BeDB2CKcwIXQWGH8C4CXhuWbl43jbdji5Pyfp9xvZTDw44hLQ/P5Nw4aEfn I7WiuHY75LJh/KA+lI+wteeWYbvuO9ScasPjjVBo7cPrtvCPrvJp2sdt5vLF3q2y0z+Y TMGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI1fHkmCarW0RmlOAUXremRqfxpHFYYvTCrWhSb6peo2X8R1VUBHKfLYYaZueUXHw==
X-Received: by 10.28.14.75 with SMTP id 72mr14698144wmo.85.1467717975340; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 04:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.249.249] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e16sm3076135wma.12.2016.07.05.04.26.13 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Jul 2016 04:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <084b1a6f-3d32-ef37-da7c-7ed6d958974c@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:26:12 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4419C58-1777-4A03-9390-6C5EA4412BF2@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>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/lMMJdEm5_enKdO0zdZblfiOZBX4>
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 11:26:19 -0000

Hi, Julian

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 1:08 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

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?

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?

Thanks

Yoav