Re: #314: realm parameter syntax

Dear Julian,

I support the final conclusion, but am only against the reasoning text.
The fact that people did a "loose" thing does not mean
that the followers should do as well.
We have a direct reason to do so instead, doesn't we?

If there are any major "senders" which have been sent token realms
for a long time, it is much important than the current reason.
In this case, I propose the following:

> Recipients are RECOMMENDED to accept both token and quoted-
> string syntax as both have been sent by several HTTP servers
> (and successfully accepted by common user-agents) for many years.

# In this case, there should be an RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED", I think.

If not, my proposal is a much simpler clause as:

> Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-
> string syntax for maximum input tolerability (both have been
> accepted by common user-agents for many years).

# or, s/might have to support/might be better supporting/

Yes, input tolerability is a good thing (at least on this case).

Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.                                       Research Scientist
                           Research Center for Information Security (RCIS)
   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
                     Mail addresses: <>, <>
OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]

Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:16:08 UTC