- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:01:13 +0200
- To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Paul Hoffman wrote: > > At 3:42 PM -0700 6/6/07, Chris Newman wrote: >> 1. HTTP Digest Authentication >> >> The SASL WG appears to have decided that SASL DIGEST-MD5 is not a >> useful authentication mechanism for a number of technical reasons. I >> would be uncomfortable having a WG spend a lot of time refining the >> existing HTTP Digest mechanism based on that experience. However, >> documenting the i18n behavior of deployed implementations sounds like >> a sensible thing to do. > > It seems weird to do significant clarification work on 2616 and > basically ignore 2617, given the normative reference to the latter. A > better option would be to do full clarifications in 2617, including a > discussion of the not-clarifiable internationalization issues. One such > clarification is a list of the problems of HTTP Digest in the modern world. > > This probably should not take "a lot of time"; if it does, it means that > the clarifications are all the more valuable. HTTP implementers who see > a lot of work in 2616bis and nothing in 2617 will not necessarily come > to the conclusion that the IETF wants; it would be better to have a > 2617bis that says what we want to say. > ... Hi, maybe things become clearer if we consider re-organizing the security stuff? Currently, - RFC2616 refers (normatively?) to RFC2617 for authentication, and - RFC2617 defines a framework (Section 1.2) and two schemes (Basic and Digest). Assuming that there's no immediate need to change the framework defines in RCF2617, Section 1.2, wouldn't it make sense to: - Move the authentication framework itself into RFC2616bis, and - to then publish stand-alone documents upgrading/fixing both Basic and Digest? The benefits being: - RFC2616bis doesn't have the dependency on its sister spec anymore, which suffers from Basic and Digest problems, and - Basic, Digest and new schemes could evolve independently. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 16:01:23 UTC