On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:28:06 +0200, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote: >> Since there are so many ways to approach this, so many variations in >> what specs are revised and how they depend upon each other, I can't >> say whether I, or the IESG, expect a revision to RFC2616 to "step >> into" the area covered by RFC2617. > > Perhaps we should poll the HTTP community as a start. Does anyone > think mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms will be helpful and > realistic? There's some interest in this area, fwiw: http://www.w3.org/Security/Activity -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 23:56:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:30 GMT