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

Re: FYI, resolution of "Digest" issue

From: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:31:53 -0700
Message-Id: <v0300781bae4b9efabc90@[]>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1517
>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.

Larry, I think you owe the HTTP WG an explanation of your "null
implementation", since it was never mentioned in the WG discussion. In my
"peering" at the draft, I see nothing that has the word "null" in it and
do not understand what you mean.

I'm not trying to be contentious, but I think it's inappropriate for you to
declare a WG discussion moot in a message to the IESG when you as WG Chair
never said so on the WG list. Further, this kind of action is especially
inappropriate when the WG chair is in the minority of the rough consensus,
as I feel is the case here. Regardless of individuals' motivations, most
folks who spoke up (and there were plenty) agreed that
digest-authentication should be a MUST in the spec.

--Paul Hoffman
--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 12:32:33 UTC

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