|
Web CAP: msg#00235ietf.x509
Just a thought... Is it a "Good Thing" to create new "methods" for operations in the specification? Wouldn'T it be better to define a set of relative URLs that have to be implemented by compliant servers? Or perhaps a simple naming scheme where the operation is given as a parameter for a single URL? Would simplyfy the implementation with existing Web servers. Firewalls also (which will certainly block unknown methods in web requests). Andreas -- Fifty-three percent of Fortune 1000 executives think the Arch Deluxe is something that helps to run a computer. -- Jericho Communications |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: German Key Usage: 00235, Andreas Berger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | CMC Comments: 00235, Nada Kapidzic Cicovic |
| Previous by Thread: | OCSP - Wait A Minute!i: 00235, Anders Rundgren |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Last Call: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile to Proposed Standard: 00235, Stefan Santesson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |