On 6/10/12 11:39 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
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.
RFC 2818 is extremely minimal in its description of the 'https' URI
scheme. At least draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging is a bit more complete.
However, the IANA Considerations of the latter document need to be
modified so that they instruct the IANA to change the data in the URI
schemes registry.
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.
Agreed.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/