WGLC p1: Scope of https update

ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) Wed, 29 May 2013 15:41 UTC

Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhiUE-0005Xg-HN@frink.w3.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:39:47 +0100
Message-ID: <f5b1u8pbxrw.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b32 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.215.16.102; envelope-from=ht@inf.ed.ac.uk; helo=treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk
Subject: WGLC p1: Scope of https update
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/f5b1u8pbxrw.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

2.7.2.  https URI scheme:

  "The process for authoritative access to an "https" identified
   resource is defined in [RFC2818]."

This does not seem sufficient to me.  Given how many relevant aspects
of 2616 have been overtaken by the various components of HTTPbis, it
seems inadequate to leave it to people's judgement to determine what
aspects, of, for example, p6, are considered to apply and which are
not.

Perhaps you might consider either enumerating which parts of 2818
remain in force, or which parts do _not_ remain in force, whichever is
easier.

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

WGLC p1: Scope of https update Henry S. Thompson