W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:30:41 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Message-Id: <FE8F2E42-9439-4C27-BC50-5C736E2E0AA4@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Hi Amos,

The changelog is removed before the RFC is published, so I think we're OK there.

WRT the text, I think we can fix that by adding an equivalent proviso to proxy-auth-info, e.g.,:

"""
The Proxy-Authentication-Info response header field is equivalent to Authentication-Info, except that its semantics are defined by the authentication scheme indicated by the Proxy-Authorization header field of the corresponding request, and applies to proxy authentication.
"""

We can do that as part of LC processing (we just wanted to get this change in before that because of the change IPR declaration).

Thanks,


> On 12 Mar 2015, at 12:50 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> On 12/03/2015 12:25 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This draft contains some last-minute editorial updates that I caught during the shepherd review:
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-auth-info-04.txt
>> 
>> ... and with that, I think we have WG consensus to submit. 
>> 
> 
> The change itself and the changelog entry do not match.
> 
> The text is now saying the Proxy-Authorization header is *not*
> applicable. When a Proxy-Authoriation may be what actually exists.
> 
> The new words need to be "indicated by Authorization or
> Proxy-Authorization" or some equivalent.
> 
> Amos
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 02:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC