- From: Thomas Maslen <Thomas.Maslen@quest.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:04:13 -0800
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "HTTP Working Group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org)" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[...] >> Is there anything *except* for the broken ABNF with respect to Basic that >> makes you think the definition isn't binding? > > No. But since Basic is 50% of 2617, it is a pretty big exception... :-) For what it's worth, the "Negotiate" and :"NTLM" auth schemes are like Basic inasmuch as they just have the scheme name followed by a Base64 blob. (Perhaps schemes such as Digest that actually satisfy the ABNF are in the minority?)
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 17:04:55 UTC