[Errata Verified] RFC9110 (7105)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 01 November 2022 15:57 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B35C1522D6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.659
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.659 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HuTrbBsK6mk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org []) (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 92C08C14F6EC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:57:29 -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 1optaR-006Ke8-29 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:53:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:53:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1optaR-006Ke8-29@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([]) 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 1optaP-006KbX-Qo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:53:57 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([] 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 1optaN-005TC3-J7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:53:57 +0000
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 3EBB0CE69C; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: tsahara@iij.ad.jp, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iana@iana.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221101155342.3EBB0CE69C@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2022 08:53:42 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; 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, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1optaN-005TC3-J7 0ddf6e3bb0bdfcfe2cb60c8e9d3461d5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Verified] RFC9110 (7105)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20221101155342.3EBB0CE69C@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40518
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 verified for RFC9110,
"HTTP Semantics". 

You may review the report below and at:

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Tomoyuki Sahara <tsahara@iij.ad.jp>
Date Reported: 2022-08-26
Verified by: Francesca Palombini (IESG)

Section: B.1.

Original Text
B.1.  Changes from RFC 2818


Corrected Text
B.1.  Changes from RFC 2818

   The use of CN-ID has been deprecated.

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.

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