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

On 28.09.2010 17:37, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> ...
>> SASL has a different registration requirements for single names and
>> family of names; when you register a family of names you essentially
>> delegate a part of the space of names to another spec -- do we really
>> want that?
> Take a look at
> <> which
> actually tried to define an HTTP auth registry. Whilst that has expired,
> I think there still might be interest in pursuing it.
> ...

As far as I can tell, this didn't try to define a generic registry...

Anyway: if there's a "family" of schemes, defined by the same 
specification, wouldn't it make more sense to have a single scheme name, 
and then dispatch depending on a scheme parameter instead?

So instead of

   WWW-Authenticate: FOO-BAR realm="realm"

one would use

   WWW-Authenticate: FOO realm="realm" type="BAR"


This would simplify the registry dramatically.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 16:27:45 UTC