IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 12 March 2015 08:11 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 C5EA01A8A52 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:11:12 -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 dQB_dKhVqq3X for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:11:08 -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 1CF151A8ADC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YVy9O-0007vN-Ig for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:07:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:07:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YVy9O-0007vN-Ig@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YVy9E-0007uW-8N for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:07:16 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YVy9D-0006Bq-U3 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:07:16 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.177] ([84.187.34.231]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfmWy-1Yt1Kq26x2-00N9iZ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:06:36 +0100
Message-ID: <5501490D.3080203@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:06:37 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20150311160240.30935.69348.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A5A4F525-DFCA-42F5-AA6B-1DDC86C87485@mnot.net> <5500F0E4.5050707@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <5500F0E4.5050707@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:vBuExVgap65IVrwpCYiN12YzU/Ek8x6Fm7D8Xbdtq0NdkknuKnQ UwbgXrOJxlU18skdglP89fT3ImL744VM60QWvtLVvxGj7IPPFE0cS+iKLkndX14XD21j/wr IBsPpjwAlyuEjm4LNBZmcfSV+6bKmgi/4l7KtKtWoK9q14vhinIV403hj91n3p97+vx6fGV I+4hpLYu+HeyHSGPAWEbQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
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/5501490D.3080203@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28942
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 2015-03-12 02:50, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 12:25 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This draft contains some last-minute editorial updates that I caught during the shepherd review:
>>    https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt
>>
>> ... and with that, I think we have WG consensus to submit.
>>
>
> The change itself and the changelog entry do not match.

How so?

> The text is now saying the Proxy-Authorization header is *not*
> applicable. When a Proxy-Authoriation may be what actually exists.

The text was changed in Section 3, which is about Authentication-Info.

Section 4, which is about Proxy-Authentication-Info, was not modified, 
as I though that the general statement:

"The Proxy-Authentication-Info response header field is equivalent to 
Authentication-Info..."

would be sufficient.

> The new words need to be "indicated by Authorization or
> Proxy-Authorization" or some equivalent.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email