- From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:16:09 -0800
- To: 'Ned Freed' <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
- Cc: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@bell-labs.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
My main point is that if digest does only one thing, prevent cleartext passwords, I am content. If we can fix the digest proposal to do just that and continue to move to draft standard, then we should to it. -- Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com> Program Manager - Internet Technologies > -----Original Message----- > From: Ned Freed [mailto:Ned.Freed@innosoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 5:41 PM > To: Josh Cohen > Cc: 'Dave Kristol'; HTTP Working Group > Subject: RE: Digest mess > > > > I agree. > > (feel free to correct me if Im wrong..) > > > There seems to be a lot of other protocols > > or efforts which depend on HTTP um, security. > > By having digest, they meet the IETF security > > requirements, and may proceed. > > If digest fails or comes out of the spec, this > > will derail other efforts as well. > > Actually it could well be the other way around. If Digest continues on its > present course and continues not to be implemented there are going to be > problems moving to Draft Standard. And if Digest stalls at Proposed > so will all > the things that depend on it. > > On the other hand, if Digest is "fixed" the most that will happen is that it > will reset to proposed. This is not a big deal -- the most it will cause is a > delay. And if the "fix" facilitates implementation it will end up facilitating > the advancement of other work that depends on it. > > The point I'm trying to make here is that continuing on the present course may > be the one thing that really isn't an option. So the question then becomes, > which change to Digest that's currently under consideration will facilitate > deployment and hence help the process along? (I do not pretend to know the > answer to this.) > > > I know that we're supposed to avoid favoring > > "process" over technical soundness, but in this > > case, I dont think that applies. > > I think process issues do apply, although the way in which they do > may not be obvious. > > Ned >
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 1998 18:21:27 UTC