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: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:32:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA20A8C.70106@gmx.de>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15.09.2010 17:50, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
 > ...
> SASL has an auth scheme registry
> (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms>). We can probably
> model ours after that (possibly adjusting if there are known problems
> with the SASL one). One thing the SASL registry has is the "Usage"

You mean:

   Intended usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE, or OBSOLETE)

? I can see that this might be useful, but in that case we should 
consider that for all of our registries...

> column which I think we definitely should adopt. Also, the possibility
> of registering a "family" of schemes through use of a wildcard
> indicator, e.g. "GS2-*" used in SASL.

I'm not convinced this is needed; after all, we haven't had a registry 
up until now.

SASL has a different registration requirements for single names and 
family of names; when you register a family of names you essentially 
delegate a part of the space of names to another spec -- do we really 
want that?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 16:33:06 GMT

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