Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 29 July 2011 20:44 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 9FD6611E80A7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.660, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ZavYlzehpsj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C7B11E808D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QmtvA-0004bO-BA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:44:36 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Qmtv2-0004a9-7e for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:44:28 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Qmtux-0008Is-6h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:44:27 +0000
Received: from unknown-10-101-30-x.yahoo.com (unknown [209.131.62.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A9E550A5D; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:43:56 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <D0313070-6578-434D-8336-541F8D27E169@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:43:54 -0700
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B3F318F-83D1-4EEC-BB55-A2D16641C510@mnot.net>
References: <4E317365.8030606@gmx.de> <D0313070-6578-434D-8336-541F8D27E169@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO=0.823, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1Qmtux-0008Is-6h eef75191fd6ee4c7bd013cec6ee407bb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4B3F318F-83D1-4EEC-BB55-A2D16641C510@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11147
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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: <E1QmtvA-0004bO-BA@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:44:36 +0000
I'm changing this ticket to editorial. On 28/07/2011, at 8:16 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 28/07/2011, at 7:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've got a TODO to mark the authentication scheme name "negotiate" as reserved (in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations); see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/308>. >> >> Thoughts: >> >> - the registry doesn't have a "status" entry; should we add that (with what values)? > > There's other discussion afoot about Web-related registries, if we wait a bit this should become apparent. > >> - if we keep the registry simple, what's the reference we would put in? A pointer to a new appendix in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations, noting that "negotiate" is reserved as a scheme name, but it's not a valid scheme as per our requirements? > > RFC4559 isn't adequate? > > >> - that being said, should there be an erratum on RFC 4559 pointing out the problems? > > > Yes. > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme … Julian Reschke
- Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth sch… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth sch… Mark Nottingham
- Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth sch… Julian Reschke