- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:16:16 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28/07/2011, at 7:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a TODO to mark the authentication scheme name "negotiate" as reserved (in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations); see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/308>. > > Thoughts: > > - the registry doesn't have a "status" entry; should we add that (with what values)? There's other discussion afoot about Web-related registries, if we wait a bit this should become apparent. > - if we keep the registry simple, what's the reference we would put in? A pointer to a new appendix in draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations, noting that "negotiate" is reserved as a scheme name, but it's not a valid scheme as per our requirements? RFC4559 isn't adequate? > - that being said, should there be an erratum on RFC 4559 pointing out the problems? Yes. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 15:16:41 UTC