Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#334 closed design (fixed)
recipient behavior for new auth parameters
Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | julian.reschke@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 19 |
Component: | p7-auth | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Should we state the default behavior for extension auth-params? Is it "must-ignore"?
Should we recommend that new schemes establish procedures for defining new parameters?
Attachments (2)
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 19
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Owner changed from draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth@… to julian.reschke@…
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Status changed from new to assigned
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from assigned to closed
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I'd say we shouldn't specify a default, but should document it as a consideration for new schemes.