Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 12 March 2015 02:35 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 AB1451A8A1A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:35:06 -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 jWGiy0NrV1d6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:35:02 -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 4805A1A8A11 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YVsu6-0000sk-W4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:31:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:31:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YVsu6-0000sk-W4@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YVstz-0000ry-Ju for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:31:11 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YVstz-0006rZ-FH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:31:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.154] (unknown [120.149.147.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB7DA22E200; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5500F0E4.5050707@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:30:41 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE8F2E42-9439-4C27-BC50-5C736E2E0AA4@mnot.net>
References: <20150311160240.30935.69348.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A5A4F525-DFCA-42F5-AA6B-1DDC86C87485@mnot.net> <5500F0E4.5050707@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.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/FE8F2E42-9439-4C27-BC50-5C736E2E0AA4@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28938
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>
Hi Amos, The changelog is removed before the RFC is published, so I think we're OK there. 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. """ We can do that as part of LC processing (we just wanted to get this change in before that because of the change IPR declaration). Thanks, > On 12 Mar 2015, at 12:50 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> 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. > > The text is now saying the Proxy-Authorization header is *not* > applicable. When a Proxy-Authoriation may be what actually exists. > > The new words need to be "indicated by Authorization or > Proxy-Authorization" or some equivalent. > > Amos > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Julian Reschke
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Julian Reschke
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Internet-Drafts
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Mark Nottingham
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Amos Jeffries
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Mark Nottingham
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Amos Jeffries
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt Julian Reschke