Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24/02/2012, at 12:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> How many times do we have to do this before we declare insanity?
>>> I don't care how much risk it adds to the HTTP charter.  They are
>>> all just meaningless deadlines anyway.  If we want HTTP to have
>>> something other than Basic (1993) and Digest (1995) authentication,
>>> then it had better be part of *this* charter so that the proposals
>>> can address them.
>> 
>> Well, Digest already isn't used by anyone :)
> 
> A popular misconception because it works unseen.  See tools.ietf.org
> 
>> Seriously, someone needs to propose some charter language or this
>> discussion is a no-op.  -Tim
> 
> "Proposals for new HTTP authentication schemes are in scope."

No one has said they're out of scope; this discussion has been about whether -- at this point in time, before we have proposals -- we require the outcome to jump through some particular hoop regarding security. 


Cheers,



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]