Re: [certid] Moving RFC 2818 to Historic (was Comments on draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-04)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

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