Hi Stephen, On 24/02/2012, at 11:54 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 02/24/2012 01:24 AM, 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." > > How would a plan like the following look to folks: > > - httpbis is chartered to include auth mechanism work as > per the above (or whatever text goes into the charter) > - that'll generate a slew of proposals, some good, some > bad, some better-than-current and some too complex > - plan is for httpbis to pick something (one or more if > they want, but one better-than-current one is the goal) > - give all the above a short timeframe (this year, pick > which to work on at the same time as re-chartering for > the details of HTTP/2.0 maybe) > - httpbis pick what they want, (zero or more) and go > do their stuff Is the goal for HTTPbis "one or more" or "zero or more"? I see both above. Again - I'm absolutely fine with soliciting proposals, but requiring output is a different thing. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf