- From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:55:19 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
At 11:20 PM +0200 5/30/07, Julian Reschke wrote: >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? If the effort for the two are temporally linked (they have to be done at the same time), and there will be a lot of overlap in the groups working on the two (that is, HTTP implementers and HTTP weenies are needed for both efforts), having two WGs seems like a waste of resources.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:55:51 UTC