W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:43:54 -0700
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <4B3F318F-83D1-4EEC-BB55-A2D16641C510@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm changing this ticket to editorial.


On 28/07/2011, at 8:16 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> On 28/07/2011, at 7:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I've got a TODO to mark the authentication scheme name "negotiate" as reserved (in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations); see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/308>.
>> 
>> Thoughts:
>> 
>> - the registry doesn't have a "status" entry; should we add that (with what values)?
> 
> There's other discussion afoot about Web-related registries, if we wait a bit this should become apparent.
> 
>> - if we keep the registry simple, what's the reference we would put in? A pointer to a new appendix in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations, noting that "negotiate" is reserved as a scheme name, but it's not a valid scheme as per our requirements?
> 
> RFC4559 isn't adequate?
> 
> 
>> - that being said, should there be an erratum on RFC 4559 pointing out the problems?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 20:44:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:46 GMT