On 6/8/10 9:27 AM, 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? > > 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.
Agreed. After HTTPBIS completes its current work items, naturally. :) /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
