IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for adoption: draft-reschke-httpauth-auth-info-00

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 30 January 2015 14:14 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 769881A033A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:14:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vaopNHXvi2dZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:14:48 -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 5B2651A0252 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YHCIu-0006ST-Jv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:12:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:12:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YHCIu-0006ST-Jv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1YHCIp-0006QG-OH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:12:07 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1YHCIo-0001cQ-2x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:12:07 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ge10so23906654lab.10 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:11:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Rn6MymbTreWEkRVzV4IjGoVPe9LypSACfE5B8hiG+8Y=; b=SCl6/21+8rTJ9NGUpZjWYe22TpesFEsRAqejF7sLuh8ITiz/+O1Y7cEpupEcaY72fx +jk1bIEo87iWMqY9PQgKOjgyuhEq8UuGJRKd2lhW2v1ypBJmfXYe4Zhi51ySyaTh1lKr KpESqkjjlZ6leTwSxOlukqbJkXcvmYQQ9Gx7dajRTbai8DZulqNjcAuctKdmYVB+ffSM DfzhUr3IExNukkfOYaTqe5+T5FHBXJHkGiTTqTVnR2vA6C5vQ7/0VFrzatF6SHD1djf0 UsUwQ61UWYshRYoLoHHrMoo2KbFp7Stp7+O8vlE/EW6A8WpJ7+KJfHMaRGrzOPfs11jX NeXA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.211.168 with SMTP id nd8mr6638315lbc.18.1422627099937; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.27.162 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:11:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54CB7F48.4060800@gmx.de>
References: <1BA93C83-91E9-4E7D-88CE-ADC8C39091C6@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXhg55e5N2O8yZJpTbz4qSm0-KpVApyDha_snetrFqvMw@mail.gmail.com> <54C9E419.1070407@greenbytes.de> <54CB7A4F.7090402@crf.canon.fr> <54CB7F48.4060800@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:11:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGL6epLUkFi6amhExWASqjS5Mvs1MVTJ1hDmhBTncznQV1GK1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3bc4ef0916b050ddf2e78"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=rifaat.ietf@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YHCIo-0001cQ-2x 71a86ee72ca2a1745db27b05bb120273
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for adoption: draft-reschke-httpauth-auth-info-00
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAGL6epLUkFi6amhExWASqjS5Mvs1MVTJ1hDmhBTncznQV1GK1A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28713
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>

Why would we restrict the use of this header in future protocols based on
the Digest usage of this header?
What would be the harm in allowing the new protocol that uses the header to
restrict it usage?

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2015-01-30 13:34, Hervé Ruellan wrote:
>
>> I think it's a good thing to have a common mechanism that could be
>> reused by several authentication schemes (at least DIGEST and SCRAM for
>> now).
>>
>> I find that the definition of the Authentication-Info header field is
>> fuzzier in this draft than it was in DIGEST. In DIGEST this header field
>> is intended to be used for "information regarding the successful
>> authentication of a client response".
>> I'd tweak the wording in the draft to put back this precision. I think
>> it would alleviate Martin's concerns. Or did I miss something?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hervé.
>>
>
> No, you didn't miss anything. Sounds like a good point (to stick with what
> 2617 said unless we have good reason to change it).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status