Re: [moore@cs.utk.edu: http digest auth + http 1.1?]

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: HTTP/1.1 + Digest"
• Previous message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Confusion about Age: accuracy vs. safety"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: [moore@cs.utk.edu: http digest auth + http 1.1?]"

>Basically, "docking" isn't practical. I don't think the HTTP editor
>(Jim) is prepared to do the rather major editing that would be
>necessary to make the merged document readable, I know that the RFC
>editor isn't, and I don't think that we can do that much editing
>without recycling through "last call".

Ah, I misunderstood your question which sounded like you were
asking about docking. My understanding of the wording in the spec 
was that the group were generally agreed that incorporating
digest was a good idea but that it might be controvertial
vis a vis the IESG and hence the conditional statement...

At all costs we must avoid going back to last call (IETF snakes
and ladders, your draft has a misprint go back to square 1)

	PHILL

• Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: HTTP/1.1 + Digest"
• Previous message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Confusion about Age: accuracy vs. safety"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: [moore@cs.utk.edu: http digest auth + http 1.1?]"