Re: [Wish] Authentication for resource url

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

Because if not it won't be implemented by clients, and we won't be able to
use it in our servers even if we want it

El jue., 16 sept. 2021 19:49, Matt Ward <[e-mail]> escribió:

> Why must it be mandated?
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:48 AM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I think that the spec must mandate authentication to be supported on the
>> client side and that its usage is optional. Meaning that all clients must
>> implement it, but allow the token to not be set (and therefore the header
>> not be sent).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Sergio
>>
>> El jue, 16 sept 2021 a las 19:43, Matt Ward (<[e-mail]>)
>> escribió:
>>
>>> I would still reiterate that I strongly recommend that the spec does not
>>> prohibit the lack of an Authentication header and therefore in some way
>>> permits building an experience really close to that of RTMP such that we do
>>> not have to retrain broadcasters. I think keeping things close to RTMP will
>>> help this spec see better adoption in the ecosystem. I really do want this
>>> spec to succeed and I do believe that keeping the requirements as minimal
>>> as possible will help speed up adoption.
>>>
>>> The question here I think should be, is WHIP as a spec actually
>>> incomplete and not independently useful without a specification of
>>> authentication? Can (and should) that be covered in optional extensions of
>>> the base spec that makes no mention of authentication?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/21 13:36, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>>> > if we expect WHIP to run in cleartext
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can't. Our charter doesn't let us define WHIP over HTTP. We're only
>>>> allowed to define WHIP over HTTPS.
>>>>
>>>> /a
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wish mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Wish mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
>>>
>>