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

Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:09:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4F53CC00.2020000@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-01 11:00, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-03-01 00:12, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>> ons 2012-02-29 klockan 23:51 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
>>
>>> "Should we state the default behavior for extension auth-params? Is it
>>> "must-ignore"?
>>
>> Yes. If not the scheme can not be extended in future while keeping
>> compatibility with existing clients.
>>
>>> Should we recommend that new schemes establish procedures for defining
>>> new parameters?"
>>
>> Yes, or alternatively we might want to define a auth-param namespace for
>> mandatory parameters.
>>
>> Regards
>> Henrik
>
> Actually, we should also remind people of describing how to define new
> parameters. Proposal:
>
> o Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of
> unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is
> preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be
> hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy
> recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for
> defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or
> "use this registry").
>
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/334/334.2.diff>)
>
>
> Best regards, Julian

Hearing no objections... -> 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1562>
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 20:10:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT