Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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. I think it likely that some minor enhancements to HTTP will be needed by a new authentication method. However I don't know that this would require an update to the base HTTP specification; a separate document might be sufficient. The more I think about it, the more I believe that a separate working group for HTTP security is needed. This work should not need to be critical path for httpbis.Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 15:27:52 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:13:58 GMT