- From: <alanr@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 08:10:46 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Alan Robertson <alanr@bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch>, "'Gregory J. Woodhouse'" <gjw@wnetc.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org"@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Alan Robertson <alanr@bell-labs.com> wrote: > Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch> wrote: > > > I don't see any reason to support both forms of access (Why have two ways > > of doing something when there is no advantage of the second method over > > the first) [ stuff omitted...] > Such a gateway could be defined easily strictly in terms of such HTTP > semantics as we are defining elsewhere. Again, the issue for the spec is: > Is it worthwhile? > Will anyone implement it? > Would anyone use it? > What is it "just the right approach" for? > > If it's worthwhile, then the questions about how it might be used come up. > Things like: What kind of management entity is going to be looking at these > results? What do they need to do their job?, etc. I erred in saying "strictly in terms of HTTP semantics". There is one significant difference between the email and HTTP worlds that matters here, and that is authentication. There are a number of differences between the two environments that would seem to imply there could be more difficulty than my previous note had indicated. -- Alan Robertson alanr@bell-labs.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 10:52:36 UTC