Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to Informational RFC

Barry Leiba <> Sat, 26 October 2013 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FDA11E8191 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.969
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jJnJDlb0Yfk for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C2911E8179 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d4so3025483qej.7 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vS7v5H76oKcxwC8efx8RP3oQGvq5POAMfqNXvNf/o6Y=; b=JmVtFOGdo5+OHa2BvXBglcj5GDXH90Lo+VTYKELqI0eycM6qhEtetI+zjEhAWqCCXi O8FKz9s+WBfRGaPPg2BgPWCIVobkFw0SqzWgb5quf72kQuzWNkhQhrKmPMQQGcYCCSAg hHJ8FLT9n+T9H3jK8AP7NlnNuqk9i2avll3IquZu7CziDWgXt53wHqb56AQ3W8Y992nP qyNTlsQ6uNGXm9886rGjAeHSCkyJVM+PL5JDkFrzTpYBw6HsiJFxbsj/9pZma3EyAq0X vNC1q5qmj+5xuk83pqb+G77HXvNYD8QuP2q3bS2Iv5fkTuDY+z9oawosQ5TmZRbKF3Ke CH3g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 6mr18376529qep.48.1382801764716; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <012601ced160$93102ee0$> <> <>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:36:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ntPqUfDOrwQSWABiB2XeQPdszJg
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to Informational RFC
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 15:36:17 -0000

Julian says...
> My experience is that longer last call periods usually do not generate more
> review, but just later review.

Indeed.  I find that almost all the time, last call reviews and
comments come in either in the first few days of the last call, or in
the last few days (or, unfortunately, a day or two after it's over).
It's uncommon for reviews to flow in throughout the period, and
four-week last calls mostly wind up with two weeks of quiet in the

> That being said, the timing indeed isn't optimal. On the other hand, it
> would be *really* good if we actually could discuss LC issues while in
> Vancouver.

And that is the reason we did the last call the way we did, accepting
that the suboptimal timing would give way to better use of time at the

Clearly, important comments won't be ignored because they're late.
But, everyone, please do your best to get your comments in by the IETF
meeting, so we can discuss them in the httpbis sessions.