On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:32, Gavin Brown wrote:
Hi Marc,
as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing
the same for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes
to be made for rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time.
There were some discussions on
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 14:32, Gavin Brown wrote:
> 1. client implementers should be advised to prefer https:// base URLs
> over http:// base URLs.
I think this is already addressed by this text in the current RFC:
"
Per [RFC7258], in each array of base RDAP URLs, the secure versions
of
Hi Marc,
> as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing the same
> for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes to be made for
> rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time. There were some
> discussions on enhancing RFC7484 for other use cases, but
In article you write:
>On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 08:46, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> if anyone has a something to raise for RFC7484, please send me email
>> asap.
>
>Hello Marc,
>
>Maybe just an update regarding TLS:
>s/RFC5246/RFC8446/
>but depending on what IANA webservers support or not.
The
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 08:46, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> if anyone has a something to raise for RFC7484, please send me email
> asap.
Hello Marc,
Maybe just an update regarding TLS:
s/RFC5246/RFC8446/
but depending on what IANA webservers support or not.
Also about:
"
Because these
Hello,
as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing
the same for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes to
be made for rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time. There
were some discussions on enhancing RFC7484 for other use cases, but
never
