Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:26:33 +0100

On 2012-01-29 17:42, SM wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> At 07:43 29-01-2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> At this point, I'd like to solicit additional feedback before I proceed;
>> in particular: should this potentially be an Applications Area WG
>> deliverable?
>
> I'll volunteer to review the draft.
>
>> With respect to intended status: in theory, this is a candidate for
>> Experimental. However, Basic Authentication (as defined in RFC 2617)
>> doesn't have a registry for extension parameters, so the cleanest
>> approach appears to say "Updates 2617", which IMHO requires a standards
>> track document.
>
> I'd say go to Proposed Standard. BTW, the "Updates 2617" does not
> require a standard track document.

Interesting. The rule I found is:

          Updates

             Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
             augmented by the new document.  The new document cannot be
             used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
             earlier document.

(<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt>, 
Section 2.11 (*))

...which supports what you said. It would be interesting to find out 
whether this proves to be correct in practice, which would be a reason 
to switch to "Experimental" :-).

Best regards, Julian