IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Thu, 12 March 2015 03:10 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 B77811A8A08 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
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 QOpkjxN0MrFM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 C0AAA1A2130 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YVtSQ-0004al-DD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:06:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:06:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YVtSQ-0004al-DD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YVtSL-0004Pz-3V for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:06:41 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YVtSJ-0003bP-UZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:06:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.19] (121-99-59-16.bng1.tvc.orcon.net.nz [121.99.59.16]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46E7E6FF5; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:06 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <55010298.9040309@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:00 +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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
References: <20150311160240.30935.69348.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A5A4F525-DFCA-42F5-AA6B-1DDC86C87485@mnot.net> <5500F0E4.5050707@treenet.co.nz> <FE8F2E42-9439-4C27-BC50-5C736E2E0AA4@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <FE8F2E42-9439-4C27-BC50-5C736E2E0AA4@mnot.net>
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=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.417, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YVtSJ-0003bP-UZ 903e8ccf3a6344df6b92ebff06bea7a3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/55010298.9040309@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28940
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 12/03/2015 3:30 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Amos,
> 
> The changelog is removed before the RFC is published, so I think we're OK there.
> 

Understood. I was using it to compare what my reading of the text was vs
what your intention was. They didnt sync.


> WRT the text, I think we can fix that by adding an equivalent proviso to proxy-auth-info, e.g.,:
> 
> """
> The Proxy-Authentication-Info response header field is equivalent to Authentication-Info, except that its semantics are defined by the authentication scheme indicated by the Proxy-Authorization header field of the corresponding request, and applies to proxy authentication.
> """

Yes, thats way better than what I proposed.


Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email