On 2015-01-30 13:34, Hervé Ruellan wrote: > I think it's a good thing to have a common mechanism that could be > reused by several authentication schemes (at least DIGEST and SCRAM for > now). > > I find that the definition of the Authentication-Info header field is > fuzzier in this draft than it was in DIGEST. In DIGEST this header field > is intended to be used for "information regarding the successful > authentication of a client response". > I'd tweak the wording in the draft to put back this precision. I think > it would alleviate Martin's concerns. Or did I miss something? > > Regards, > > Hervé. No, you didn't miss anything. Sounds like a good point (to stick with what 2617 said unless we have good reason to change it). Best regards, JulianReceived on Friday, 30 January 2015 12:56:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC