Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter

From: Graham Klyne (GK@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Mon, Feb 15 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990215104420.006b60f8@pop.dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:34:16 +0000
To: <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>
From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: Chris Newman <chris@innosoft.com>, Mike Spreitzer <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-http-ng@w3.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter

At 08:43 12/02/99 PST, spreitze@parc.xerox.com wrote:
>As for the first: how do higher layers ever "know" about authentication
done in lower layers?  This is an issue of software in the peers, not the
protocol, right?  What goes on the wire makes it clear (assuming the
protocols above and below MEMUX were prepared to be separated at all ---
which they would of course be if they're separate protocols); the issue is
that an API for using MEMUX must enable authentication to pass through the
MEMUX software layer appropriately.  As this WG is not about designing the
API, I figure that issue is out of scope.
>
>I think the other two issues are clearly in scope.
>

I think the first is also in scope, to the extent that your points above be
noted as a "security consideration".

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)