Re: security requirements (was: Updating RFC 2617 (HTTP Digest) to use UTF-8)

On 11/4/06, Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
> It's what those words mean.
>

With no malice, I don't think you have good understanding of how the
IESG interprets "mandatory-to-implement". Let's say Basic becomes
mandatory-to-implement. That means FooCorp could not distribute a
FooCorp-branded client that has no way to be configured for Basic
authentication and claim HTTP conformance.

Which is pretty silly given that proprietary Web server applications
exist only as deployed--there is no separate "implementation".

-- 

Robert Sayre

Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 21:48:04 UTC