W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Ticket 237 (absorbing more of 2617), was: Minutes for Maastricht

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:39:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5024EC.9070609@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

we discussed the issue of absorbing more of RFC 2617 (everything excpet 
the actual schemes) during our meeting:

>  4. RFC2617
> mnot: part7 is the http auth framework, the meat of auth (basic and digest) is in 2617
> issues like i18n auth scheme registry might be addressed
> a path could be to have basic and digest in one or two drafts, framework in p7
> Alexey: seems to be the right thing to do, having the framework in p7 is fine, other two documents will need a recharter
> mnot: no changes needed as a first step to produce new documents, only i18n will require changes
> Alexey: reopening digest could be controversial
> <Barry Leiba> Cyrus: I don't see that draft-ietf-vwrap-type-system <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/draft-ietf-vwrap-type-system/> has any ref to RFC 2617.  Checking whether I got the right doc when you said that.
> <Barry Leiba> Never mind... 2817, not 2617.
> mnot: if the recharter says that only editorial changes are made, it could help.
> Cyrus: not sure IESG will accept Digest as-is
> Alexey: moving to historic might help. If somebody want to reopen Basic and Digest, it would be better if it was in a WG
> Cyrus: Mutual Auth is there as an example of new auth
> mnot: we are not a security-related WG
> <roy.fielding> How about defining a registry for auth schemes?
> Alexey: that is a good idea (in response to Roy's comment)

It appears there was agreement that we should remove the missing bits of 
the framework into Part 7, so I have opened ticket 237 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/237>) to track the 
work on this.

For now I see (besides boilerplate and acks changes):

- Section 1.2 (the actual framework), and
- selected pieces of Section 4 (security considerations)

Feedback appreciated, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 12:39:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC