W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #349: "strength"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:25:23 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B28B8DF-366E-40F3-A7FC-F5BEA6948642@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
... and I'm closing the WGLC ticket. Thanks.



On 05/06/2012, at 6:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-06-04 07:54, David Morris wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Change applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1669>.
> 
> We can discuss terminology, but this should happen in a separate thread.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 07:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 07:25:55 GMT