Adding to what SM already wrote (and yes, I've reread the whole document): On 1 Jun 2012, at 21:23, SM <s...@resistor.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@ietf.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.
