Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>> no.  deprecate 2617.  deprecate the framework that is in 2616.  HTTP
>> security needs a clean slate approach.
>
> I personally have no problem with this. In the wild, most
> authentication isn't using RFC2617 anyway.
>
> However, my understanding is that the IESG doesn't allow RFC2616bis
> not to discuss authentication in *some* manner.
I'm certain that there will have to be a good answer to the
authentication question before 2616bis will be allowed to get any kind
of standardization status.  (it could probably be in a separate document).
> BTW: does the framework really require fixing?
I am pretty sure that it does.  I think sites will continue to insist on
being in control of the look and feel of the username/password dialog. 
I also think that the phishing concerns have to be dealt with.  The two
of these together make for an interesting set of constraints.

Keith