Adding to what SM already wrote (and yes, I've reread the whole document):
On 1 Jun 2012, at 21:23, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 09:42 01-06-2012, IESG Secretary wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the TLS Working Group to reclassify RFC
2818 (HTTP Over TLS) to Proposed Standard.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf at
ietf.org mailing lists by
Could the IESG please use ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead of obfuscating the
email address? Some of us are lazy especially on Fridays.
Erratum #1077 has been classified as "Held for Document Update". Will there
ever be a document update? Implementing this specification requires HTTP/1.1
and TLS 1.0. I suggest updating the reference to RFC 4346 at least and
waiting for the updated HTTP specifications.
Yes, it would be worth doing that if the document is reopened.
St. Andre and Mr. Hodges authored a Proposed Standard called "Representation
and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet
Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of
Transport Layer Security (TLS)". Quoting from Section 1.4:
"the procedures described here can be referenced by future
specifications, including updates to specifications for
existing application protocols if the relevant technology
communities agree to do so."
May I suggest taking the above into consideration and at least put some
minimal effort into a 2818bis?
Not surprisingly I agree with you.
Also note that HTTPBis WG has folded the updated definition of https:// URI
schemes (Section 2.4 of RFC 2818) into one of its documents. I think it would
be good to make it clear to readers which document defines the URI scheme.
As far as reopening the document is concerned: I slightly prefer to do
rfc2818bis although I understand that doing a -bis always takes longer than
originally anticipated.