Robert,
thanks for following up even though the outcome was as expected.
Robert Sayre schrieb:
Atompub,
Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current
draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard.
Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consider to have
the protocol published somewhere else (remember there was a big
discussion about W3C vs IETF before this working group was formed?).
HTTP-WG,
Which mechanism will become required to implement for all HTTP/1.1
implementations? You can't cycle at DS without picking one.
One potential outcome may be that there'll be no revision of the spec.
IESG,
"It means what we want it to mean". Below, there are some brief
responses to the irrelevant citations that were included.
I guess I'll head over to Apache and write some client support for their
new HTTP security standards.
Sounds good. Any pointers to what's going on there? A good security
mechanism implemented both in Apache httpd and Mozilla clearly would be
A Good Thing.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf