RE: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP Authentication

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Fri, 27 April 2012 09:57 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 E094421F86F6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 MEkhpp8z8a4F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461DE21F86D4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SNht2-0005WF-Ut for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:54:48 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lionel.morand@orange.com>) id 1SNhst-0005UT-E3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:54:39 +0000
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([217.108.152.42]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lionel.morand@orange.com>) id 1SNhsn-0001RG-B6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:54:37 +0000
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ABAD5D8A5A; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:54:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AEA5D8867; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:54:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:54:07 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:54:06 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577014C891D@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP Authentication
Thread-Index: Ac0kNv+k4jF4bnX1TAOAzfrcv6a4LgAIgaigAACohiA=
References: <14A09626-8397-4656-A042-FEFDDD017C9F@mnot.net>
From: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
To: <mnot@mnot.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2012 09:54:07.0450 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFD973A0:01CD245B]
Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=217.108.152.42; envelope-from=lionel.morand@orange.com; helo=r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SNhsn-0001RG-B6 26231163a6480b9ae408f0aaed4908ab
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP Authentication
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F577014C891D@ftrdmel1>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13489
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: <E1SNht2-0005WF-Ut@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:54:48 +0000

Hi,

RFC 3310 is informational but used in mobile networks. I think it is worth to consider the interest of defining this mechanism as "standard" HTTP authentication scheme. What should be the process?

In the same line, I have a draft on adaption of RFC3310 for 2G AKA (see. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-morand-http-digest-2g-aka-02.txt). I would propose to add it to the list of new potential authentication schemes but only if RFC 3310 is part of the same list. Otherwise, it could be only informal.

Regards,

Lionel 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2012 07:28
À : HTTP Working Group
Objet : Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication

Just a reminder that we're still accepting proposals for:

1. HTTP/2.0
2. New HTTP authentication schemes

As per our charter <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/>;.

So far, we've received the following proposals applicable to HTTP/2.0:
  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/Http2Proposals>

But none yet for authentication schemes:
  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/HttpAuthProposals>

As communicated in Paris, the deadline for proposals is 15 June, 2012. It's fine if your proposal isn't complete, but we do need to have a  good sense of it by then, for discussion.

Regards,

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