[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD2521F9CE9; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uuedJu65JiX0; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E987C21F9A4A; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.39]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9U4gwbr023165 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1383108235; bh=UjjwrxI/a5LQh8NW7oyVJYtqK0/+lI0u0nMWFK6uXvs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=kpNQXYyvxnaf47FXROkAennw3l4Z501anY3SUvENizGnB3j0uTqld7rYnvH1czz8v gwBI+nmCusGN2UymChy9IEz7I9w+KLTgDxWCetJx7NjkdZ/OJNTV1bBB/tJ2wh9ckD QBjWEKemp24JOwCkgx3UOjfqyzsWKjMGC6aOxD8U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1383108235; i=@elandsys.com; bh=UjjwrxI/a5LQh8NW7oyVJYtqK0/+lI0u0nMWFK6uXvs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=agkqyGdpLxGUgdDa49EZXjQRAjMQo9MnbU7tvcwtNDRu/E/+xXozJi1GbvD5/kaek sJIl2Ll8QmH1RnB8z4nzJ8afRXZnwtr3ahtis/vlN+RBTrj4KPhwJav0nNt+EykBx/ saFqB04YzUCGR5QpTH3fBwbdq2IJ6ek9Oqg6sxZs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131029174854.0c2cee28@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:58:05 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:47:51 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on APPSDIR, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08
Title: Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication 
Scheme Registrations
Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: October 29, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: October 21, 2013

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

This document registers Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 
authentication schemes which have been defined in standards-track 
RFCs before the IANA HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry was established.

Major Issues: None:

Minor Issues:

The initial registrations of HTTP authentication schemes for the IANA 
HTTP Authentication Scheme registry are in the Appendix instead of 
the IANA Considerations section.  I suggest having them in that section.

Nits:

This review does not contain editorial nits.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy