- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:53:45 +0200
- To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-07-26 17:47, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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>. > ... Additionally, I have added this as a "Change from RFC 2616", and fixed the ABNF for challenges not to require an auth-param anymore. See: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1385> Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 18:54:23 UTC