- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:47:48 +0200
- To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-07-25 15:48, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-07-25 02:47, Manger, James H wrote: >> Julian, >> >> The concept of a "protection space" is quite important (eg for >> automatically applying credentials), regardless of whether or not a >> 'realm' parameter is present. Unfortunately, the proposed patch to >> make 'realm' optional also effectively makes a protection space >> optional. How about changing the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of >> 2.2 "Protection Space (Realm)" to the following: >> >> A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (...) >> of the server being accessed, in combination with the realm >> value if present. > > ... > > OK; new proposed patch: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/177/177.diff>. > ... ...applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/177/177.diff>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 15:48:22 UTC