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

Re: FYI, resolution of "Digest" issue

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:48:35 PDT
To: jg@zorch.w3.org
Cc: paulh@imc.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu
Message-Id: <96Aug29.234835pdt."2733"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1536
Personally, I don't see any point in a short RFC that says that you're
required to implement what's in draft-http-digest-aa-04.txt, because
*that* draft is pretty weak.

If working group members really want to REQUIRE that you MUST REALLY
implement digest authentication, I think we would have to revise
draft-http-digest-aa-04.txt so that it actually stated some
requirements where "MUST IMPLEMENT" actually meant something.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time. Little applicability
statements are the hobgoblins of ... well, you know how it goes.

We should focus on more important things, like the HTTP/1.2 documents.
The folks in distributed authoring and version management seem to also
want us to consider LINK and LOCK and UNLOCK and GET-VERSION and a
bunch of other things, too. We have lots of work.

I guess people can get excited about "MUST implement digest
authentication" but don't have time to actually make progress on
the _real_ problems.

Received on Thursday, 29 August 1996 23:50:35 UTC

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