- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:20:28 +0200
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- CC: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Eliot Lear wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> For instance, RFC2617 needs a revision badly as well (for instance, >> wrt to I18N of usernames and passwords, and, as far as I can recall, >> certain problems with the definition of Digest Auth). IMHO; this >> should occur in a separate working group. > > The HTTP auth model needs a lot of work. Creating an update without > addressing it seems to me pointless. Well, RFC2616 needs updating, so does RFC2617. Why does this need to be the same activity? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 21:28:05 UTC