- From: Jösh <josh@bluescreen.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:58:37 -0400
- To: "Larry Masinter - LMM@acm.org" <lmnet@attglobal.net>, "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, <mtimmerm@opentext.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Masinter - LMM@acm.org" <lmnet@attglobal.net> To: "Jösh" <josh@bluescreen.org>; "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>; <mtimmerm@opentext.com>; <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: RE: I command you to support Digest!!! > The standards group must choose a baseline that is both > "secure enough" and "interoperable enough". So far, the group > chose "must support Digest". If you change it to "must support > Digest OR basic+SSL" on the server side, then you're mandating > "must support Digest AND basic+SSL" on the client side. > > This is nice for server implementors but maybe not as nice for > client implementors. > Thats a pretty good observation. However, i think digest for server implementors is *hard* while digest for client implementors is *easy*. I think that might be a good plan.. >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 16:57:03 UTC