Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 01 February 2012 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCFF21F8504 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uef2LaoPCJQT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987B121F84D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsPn5-0002t4-HL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:19:19 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1RsPmt-0002sD-PI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:19:07 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1RsPmr-0002GD-Nq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:19:07 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.240.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CF4622E258; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:18:41 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F285AB3.4090506@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:18:38 +1100
Cc: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E910C302-A150-4486-A08F-A9486360F538@mnot.net>
References: <20120129152840.10536.93223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F2567DA.3060608@gmx.de> <visci75v85ndepsfib5qfpdqvsb84m8piu@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4F26D337.1020507@gmx.de> <4F279977.1080705@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4F285AB3.4090506@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1RsPmr-0002GD-Nq 08f8d9ba9b2e5cfd262b6e90c39df380
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E910C302-A150-4486-A08F-A9486360F538@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12291
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RsPn5-0002t4-HL@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:19:19 +0000

Seems reasonable. If this is where we're at WRT this draft, it suggests to me it's ready to go...

Cheers,


On 01/02/2012, at 8:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-01-31 08:34, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> ...
>>>> to the name, `useUTF8` or `use-utf-8="yes" or some such would have been
>>>> clearer).
>>> 
>>> That's another good suggestion; we're not going to allow any other
>>> encoding, so maybe making it a real flag is the best solution. What do
>>> others think?
>> 
>> I'm all in favor.
>> ...
> 
> (tracked at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-issues.html#issue.paramname>)
> 
> So
> 
>  WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="foo", useUTF8
> 
> looks cute, but then there's
> 
>  auth-param     = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
> 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.html#rfc.section.2.1>)
> 
> So it needs a value. We could say
> 
>  useUTF8="yes"
> 
> but then there's always the problem of remembering whether the syntax is "0"/"1", "false"/"true" or "no"/"yes".
> 
> We also could say that the presence of the parameter is sufficient, such as with
> 
>  useUTF8=""
> 
> but then people will be confused when useUTF8="false" does the same thing as for "true".
> 
> So overall, I think it's better to stick to
> 
>  encoding="value"
> 
> and hard-wire the value to "UTF-8". (I'm open to renaming the parameter to "enc" or "charset")
> 
> Feedback on both points appreciated; in doubt, I'll leave things as they are now.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/