- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:43:54 -0700
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I'm changing this ticket to editorial. On 28/07/2011, at 8:16 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 20:44:28 UTC