- From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:39 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Julian, --On September 15, 2010 2:39:45 PM +0200 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> 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). SASL has an auth scheme registry (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms>). We can probably model ours after that (possibly adjusting if there are known problems with the SASL one). One thing the SASL registry has is the "Usage" column which I think we definitely should adopt. Also, the possibility of registering a "family" of schemes through use of a wildcard indicator, e.g. "GS2-*" used in SASL. -- Cyrus Daboo
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 15:51:21 UTC