On 6/3/10 3:59 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > >>> As I said, here you have room for clarification. You essentially >>> rewrite 2818 >> >> This proposed BCP is not limited to HTTP so it does not (only) rewrite >> RFC 2818, but yes it is intended (in part) to provide more up-to-date >> guidelines. > > Should we add a section that moves 2818 to historic? (sorry if this has > been asked before)
I'm not that ambitious. :) Besides, I think this proposed BCP would update one small aspect of RFC 2818, not obsolete it. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
