Re: ignoring unknown parameters, Re: [http-auth] Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-05.txt> (The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme) to Proposed Standard

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

 



* Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 2015-02-06 07:43, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>>> There should be an example for "no other authentication parameters are
>>> defined -- unknown parameters MUST be ignored by recipients", otherwise
>>> such extension points are too easily missed by implementers.
>>
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httpauth/#simplebasicnewparam2> shows that
>> UAs seem to get at least this correct. I'll think about it.
>
>OK. In my tests I don't see anybody getting *that* wrong, and the new 
>text already is much clearer than RFC 2617 ever was.
>
>Thus I don't think we need an example here. Also note that the real 
>challenge (pun intended) is to parse multiple challenges properly; this 
>is something many UAs *do* get wrong despite the prose in both RFC 2617 
>and RFC 7235.

You cannot really test future implementations. I will survive without an
example, but I think it is a bad practise to omit examples demonstrating
extension mechanisms like this one.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 





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