Re: Issue 141: "should we have an auth scheme registry"

On 13.09.2010 18:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> this issue has been waiting for the authentication framework to become
> part of P7. Now that this has been resolved experimentally (pending IESG
> approval), we can get back to it.
>
> Things to decide:
>
> 1) What kind of registration requirements do we want to have?
>
> 2) How do we populate the registry?
>
> 3) Which schemes do we want to populate the registry with?
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1) Same as status codes and method names, meaning "IETF Review", as
> defined in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>:
> ...

Clarifying (after getting an off-list question): yes, this would allow 
Informational and Experimental RFCs (when using the IETF stream).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 12:40:25 UTC