Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Sean,
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)
RFC 2818 contains more information than just the TLS server identity
verification procedure for https. Besides RFC 2818 is widely used and I
think moving it to historic would be a disservice to the community.
Maybe you meant to suggest "obsoleting" it?
Maybe we should be updating the pertinent sections? That would mean
adding "Updates: 2818 (once approved) to the header of this document?
Also clearly state it doesn't just apply to HTTP.
One year ago I was trying to convince Ekr to update RFC 2818, but he
wasn't interested. I still think this would be a good idea. I also think
that HTTPBIS is a better place for this activity.
What Peter said ;)
spt
_______________________________________________
certid mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
