I'm fine, too. -- Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp> on mobile 2015/02/07 0:47 "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>: > On 06/02/2015 10:01, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2015-02-04 17:46, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 2015-02-02 15:08, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: >>> >>>> This document does not define any semantics associated with these >>>> header, which means that the document that uses these header will be the >>>> one that must address the information leak issue. >>>> I do not see why we would restrict a future use of these headers based >>>> on the Digest usage; this seems odd to me. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Rifaat >>>> >>> >>> Well, the goal for me was not to define anything new, but just to >>> extract what we have already into something that can be maintained >>> separately from DIGEST. As such, Hervé's comment made sense to me, and I >>> updated the editor's copy accordingly: >>> >>> >>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis- >>> auth-info-latest-from-previous.diff.html> >>> >>> >>> Maybe other potential users of Auth-Info (Yutaka & Alexey) could state >>> whether having this constraint would affect their ability to use >>> Authentication-Info? >>> >>> Assuming that is not the case, I'd like to declare victory, submit a new >>> draft, and ask Mark to start a WGLC... >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> ... >>> >> >> Seeing no additional feedback, I went ahead and submitted draft 01. >> > I think your definition would work for the SCRAM draft. > >
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 21:27:40 UTC