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

Re: Issue 141: "should we have an auth scheme registry"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:39:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4C90BE91.9070506@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13.09.2010 18:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> this issue has been waiting for the authentication framework to become
> part of P7. Now that this has been resolved experimentally (pending IESG
> approval), we can get back to it.
>
> Things to decide:
>
> 1) What kind of registration requirements do we want to have?
>
> 2) How do we populate the registry?
>
> 3) Which schemes do we want to populate the registry with?
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1) Same as status codes and method names, meaning "IETF Review", as
> defined in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>:
> ...

Clarifying (after getting an off-list question): yes, this would allow 
Informational and Experimental RFCs (when using the IETF stream).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 12:40:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT