The document says that the intended status is 'Informational'.
Statements such as "IETF recommends", and normative words such as 'MUST'
as used as per RFC 2119, appears inconsistent with the intended use of
the 'Informational' status (RFC 2026 4.2.2):
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation.
Thus, I suggest that either
1) The intended status of the document is changed to
2) The normative words, references to RFC 2119, and statements regarding
'IETF recommends' are removed.
I would prefer 1).
Lisa Dusseault <lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org> writes:
You may have seen this draft a year ago; Sam is back working on it and
produced version -09 last month.
If you've reviewed it before, please take a look at the changes. If
you'd like to review it, please do. I'm the shepherd for this draft,
so comments can be sent to me, to Sam as author, to
ietf-http-auth(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org , or to the IETF general list as
In addition to getting general input, I'd like to get a sense of
whether we have consensus on a couple things.
a). The statement including "IETF recommends", from section 1.1 of
"In publishing this memo, the IETF recommends making available
authentication mechanisms that meet the requirements outlined in
Section 4 in HTTP user agents including web browsers. It is hoped
that these mechanisms will prove a useful step in fighting phishing.
However this memo does not restrict work either in the IETF or any
other organization. In particular, new authentication efforts are
not bound to meet the requirements posed in this memo unless the
charter for those efforts chooses to make these binding
Less formally, the IETF presents this memo as an option to pursue
while acknowledging that there may be other promising paths both now
and in the future."
b) Whether the document should require mutual authentication (section
Ietf mailing list