- From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 04/06/2012, at 10:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > > * Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> On 02/06/2012, at 8:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >>> -1; if we change the terms we should do so consistently. > >> > >> I thought "details" captured a certain vagueness that would help in this particular case. YMMV. > > > > I agree with Julian in that if we want to consider changing the termino- > > logy, we should do that in a dedicated thread rather than arguing about > > the terms in the particular example, short of a rationale why this par- > > ticular instance is exceptional. I don't think, in any case, "details" > > would be a good replacement. > > See my subsequent message; my understanding was that this is a special > case, because it's not talking about what's happening on the wire. I don't see a reason to call what is on the wire anything different than what is provided by the user. It is encoded according to the rules of the authentication method. There is no clarity that I can divine with the additional complexity.
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 05:55:29 UTC