W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: HTTP/1.1 + Digest

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:21:58 PDT
To: dan@spyglass.com
Cc: dwm@shell.portal.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Aug27.212158pdt."2733"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1498
It is completely against the principles of IETF standards that the
process of arriving at "rough consensus" could result in threatening
to slap "uncompliant" on someone publicly. It's a rather empty

Besides, there are ample examples of situations where a HTTP/1.1
compliant application (not necessarily a browser) might implement one
kind of authentication and not another. There's no first-principled
reason to brand THOSE applications uncompliant in a quest for some
kind of marketing press release.

No thanks,

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 1996 21:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC