- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:31:11 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
On 2012-06-04 07:54, David Morris wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> >> On 04/06/2012, at 10:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> >>> * Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> On 02/06/2012, at 8:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>>> -1; if we change the terms we should do so consistently. >>>> >>>> I thought "details" captured a certain vagueness that would help in this particular case. YMMV. >>> >>> I agree with Julian in that if we want to consider changing the termino- >>> logy, we should do that in a dedicated thread rather than arguing about >>> the terms in the particular example, short of a rationale why this par- >>> ticular instance is exceptional. I don't think, in any case, "details" >>> would be a good replacement. >> >> See my subsequent message; my understanding was that this is a special >> case, because it's not talking about what's happening on the wire. > > I don't see a reason to call what is on the wire anything different than > what is provided by the user. It is encoded according to the rules of > the authentication method. There is no clarity that I can divine with > the additional complexity. Change applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1669>. We can discuss terminology, but this should happen in a separate thread. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 08:38:30 UTC