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

FYI, resolution of "Digest" issue

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:42:21 PDT
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Aug29.114221pdt."2733"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1516
I sent the following note to the area directors, as my reading of the
intent of the working group and the current status:


Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 09:47:50 -0700
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
CC: moore@cs.utk.edu,dsr@w3.org,jg@w3.org
In-reply-to: <8467.841303987@domen.uninett.no>
Subject: digest authentication summary
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

I missed the message, but saw some of the replies.

I think the consensus of the working group is that Digest
Authentication is a part of HTTP/1.1. Fortunately, what people in the
WG were talking about ("Must implement digest if they implement
basic") is actually moot, since "implement" can mean the "null
implementation", if you peer at draft-ietf-http-digest-aa-04.txt.

So, I think we should just go ahead with the two documents; it would
be convenient to include in section 11.2 a simple statement that

"The HTTP/1.1 protocol includes the Digest Access Authentication,
which is described in RFC XXXX."

I think this captures the intent of the working group and what it is
that got voted on in last call.

I think we should instruct the RFC editor to change the title of
draft-ietf-http-digest-aa-04.txt from

	"A Proposed Extension to HTTP: Digest Access Authentication"


	"Digest Access Authentication for HTTP"

I'm sorry for causing a flap by forwarding the note to the working
group instead of just responding directly. Actually, I think I may
have mainly been trying to SHARE THE GOOD NEWS that both had been
voted on by the IESG.

Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 11:44:51 UTC

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