- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:53:03 +1000
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Considering the scope of 2616bis is errata, and explicitly not new features/mechanisms, I'm not sure I follow. Do you think that designing new auth mechanisms will expose new errata? My initial thought is that it's much more likely that it'll require who new features, or no changes to HTTP at all. On 31/05/2007, at 5:37 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > An authentication requirements document sits in "Last Call" right > now as we speak. My concern is that we'll close 2616bis only to > discover that not only do we need a 2617bis but also a 2616bisbis. > The only real question is whether or not we can move fast enough on > the auth work so that you're not left twiddling your thumbs too long. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:53:14 UTC