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

Re: Digest Auth (fwd)

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960829082754.7035A-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1514

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, John Franks wrote:

> As you observe server support for digest auth is widely available.
> The reason no one uses it is because it is not supported by Netscape
> or MSIE -- period.  As long as this remains the case digest will never

I think we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Server software is
available which is claimed to support digest but it is not activated by
real installations because the majority of users don't have clients which
will support it *AND* apparently the server installation can't, at least
easily, support basic and digest concurrently. On the otherhand, the
client authors can't find a set of easy places to test their code with
so the clients don't include the code.

In my experience, it is very rare for a development organization to have
the resources to do everything the know to be right to do. I also find
that the QA groups are even more stressed. In particular, the QA group
may have learned how to test the browser but don't have the skills to
set up many varieties of servers. I would expect that testing would
focus on a very few servers and then depend on WWW deployed servers for
surface verification with others. After all, if http is an interoperable
protocol, it should be sufficient to test with one server.

This group is a bit two faced. A couple weeks a go, a prominant member was
chastising folks who might be publishing a server and calling it HTTP/1.1
before the very stable draft is really approved by the IETF. Now we
are complaining because one or more other software publishers chose not
to deliver software matching a spec about which discussion had gotten
very hot and might be expected to be an unstable implementation target.

C'mon folks we can't have it both ways!

I think there is some obvious room here for W3C activity in the form of
facilitating the testing of client and server implementation of
  1.  Bring up and make 'public' a copy of each of the servers which
      claim to implement digest, with digest active of course.
  2.  I believe there is at least one publicly available client which
      also claims to support digest. Help any interested developers
      install and use such clients.  If necessary because of platform
      difficulties, use the client against a developers server.
  3.  Do both of the above with appropriate diagnostic tools such as
      sniffers available to facilitate diagnosis of the failure to
  4.  Provide some level of consulting services to help with problem

Of course, this is still difficult because I would expect that most
developers and QA groups are behind firewalls which might not be real
friendly to such testing.

One could hope that the server and client teams within a organization 
might cooperate but I would guess that the product manager at one
publisher for the server might have different priorities from the 
client in the same organization. Surely the client needs the support
at least a generation sooner than the server. And in any case, I 
would worry that just because AAclient works with AAserver, they
may not operate with BBserver or BBclient.

So in summary, if we as a WG think deployment of digest is important, then
I think we need to forget about the political implications of SHOULD
vs MUST and somehow forcing publishers to do it our way and figure out
how to facilitate the environment needed for publishers to successfully
develop, test, and ship digest enabled software.

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 09:06:01 UTC

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