- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:25:23 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
... and I'm closing the WGLC ticket. Thanks. On 05/06/2012, at 6:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 07:25:49 UTC