Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info
Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Tue, 03 March 2015 07:05 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B211A90CF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:05:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 dAFs9_l5ur0S for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275561A90D0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YSgqV-00019H-CM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:02:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:02:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YSgqV-00019H-CM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YSgqM-00017j-HE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:02:14 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YSgqL-00065J-39 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:02:14 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.14] (121-99-59-16.bng1.tvc.orcon.net.nz [121.99.59.16]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2D5E6EE3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:01:36 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <54F55C40.7030503@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:01:20 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <2ACFD2A2-D620-4409-BB2E-D7F8C88CB26C@mnot.net> <54F556C2.3080003@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <54F556C2.3080003@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.467, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YSgqL-00065J-39 02eabaf00b71a3dc1d759c6f9085fe46
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54F55C40.7030503@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28878
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>
On 3/03/2015 7:37 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2015-03-03 03:49, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Julian has disposed of all of the issues raised during WGLC, and >> there's only one editorial issue left (regarding RFC2119 language). > > The ones I added in github. Amos, are you ok with the changes I made? In the new text for section 4 copied from RFC7235: " Hence, in such a configuration, it will appear as if Proxy-Authentication-Info is being forwarded because each proxy will send the same challenge set. " I'm not sure if "challenge set" is the right words there since this is a response header and challenge is request detail. Perhapse "header field-value" instead? Overall it looks good to me, even with the above. Amos
- draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info Mark Nottingham
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info Amos Jeffries
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info Julian Reschke