Subject: Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:00:14 +0100

On 2012-03-01 00:12, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> ons 2012-02-29 klockan 23:51 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
>
>> "Should we state the default behavior for extension auth-params? Is it
>> "must-ignore"?
>
> Yes. If not the scheme can not be extended in future while keeping
> compatibility with existing clients.
>
>> Should we recommend that new schemes establish procedures for defining
>> new parameters?"
>
> Yes, or alternatively we might want to define a auth-param namespace for
> mandatory parameters.
>
> Regards
> Henrik

Actually, we should also remind people of describing how to define new 
parameters. Proposal:

    o  Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of
       unknown extension parameters.  In general, a "must-ignore" rule is
       preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be
       hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy
       recipients.  Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for
       defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or
       "use this registry").

(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/334/334.2.diff>)

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:09:36 +0100

> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/334/334.2.diff>)

Hearing no objections... -> 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1562>