[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 26 August 2022 06:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56F3C1522A9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MVAPxmL4U1dF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18546C14CE43 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oRSet-00HAI7-WA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:17:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:17:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oRSet-00HAI7-WA@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1oRSer-00HAH9-Kr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:17:33 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([50.223.129.200] helo=rfcpa.amsl.com) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1oRSeq-003N8E-0Y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:17:33 +0000
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id C0E3055D46; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: tsahara@iij.ad.jp, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220826061717.C0E3055D46@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:17:17 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.223.129.200; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1oRSeq-003N8E-0Y 89355ac53052cc00cd321fb9145bfde6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20220826061717.C0E3055D46@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40357
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110, "HTTP Semantics". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7105 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Tomoyuki Sahara <tsahara@iij.ad.jp> Section: B.1. Original Text ------------- B.1. Changes from RFC 2818 None. Corrected Text -------------- B.1. Changes from RFC 2818 The use of CN-ID has been deprecated. Notes ----- In RFC2818: If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present, that MUST be used as the identity. Otherwise, the (most specific) Common Name field in the Subject field of the certificate MUST be used. CN-ID may be used (when a subjectAltName of type dNSName is not present). In RFC9110: A reference identity of type CN-ID MUST NOT be used by clients. CN-ID is not used at all. It is a change from RFC2818. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19) -------------------------------------- Title : HTTP Semantics Publication Date : June 2022 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : HTTP Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105) Julian Reschke
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105) Julian Reschke
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7105) Julian Reschke