- From: <Eric_Houston/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:55:15 -0500
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, zurko@opengroup.org
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I don't see why a standard ACL protocol cannot be specified, it would add TREMENDOUS value. -e ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Houston/CAM/Lotus on 12/15/97 09:51 AM --------------------------- Mary Ellen Zurko <zurko@opengroup.org> on 12/11/97 08:41:29 AM To: Eric Houston/CAM/Lotus cc: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys) , http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, zurko@opengroup.org Subject: Re: Proposal for new HTTP 1.1 authentication scheme > 1) When the content server redirects the request to the authentication > server, it encrypts the ACL for the protected resource. The authentication > server then validates the user against the (decrypted) ACL and returns the > first matching entry to be cached in the browser. When the browser is > queried for user credentials, the encrypted (authenticated) group > affiliations are returned to the content server. > Since there are no standardized ACLs, I don't think this can be addressed in the HTTP spec. Or did I miss the part where ACLs were added to HTTP? Mez
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 1997 15:06:31 UTC