- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:19:41 +0200
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Eliot Lear wrote: > Mark, >> Considering the scope of 2616bis is errata, and explicitly not new >> features/mechanisms, I'm not sure I follow. Do you think that >> designing new auth mechanisms will expose new errata? >> >> My initial thought is that it's much more likely that it'll require >> who new features, or no changes to HTTP at all. > > If you do the errata and then we need any update to cover authentication > - whatsoever - we end up with bisbis. That's my point. But that would be an update to RCF2617, not RFC2616bis, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 12:26:31 UTC