Re: [IPsec] #117: Hash and URL interop

> > The behavior of other URL methods is not currently specified, so
> > such methods SHOULD NOT be used in the absence of a Standards Track
> > document defining them.
> 
> This addition is ok for me, altough I do not think we need to have
> *Standard Track* documents to be able to use, I would just say "in the
> absens of document defining them". I think having information RFC
> telling how to use ftp URLs should be ok, especially as some people
> might be against making such document standard track document.

I agree.

As an aside, I would expect any such document not only to loosely specify 
the behavior of https or ftp URLs (for example), but also to introduce new 
notify types such as HTTPS_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED and 
FTP_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED.

Scott Moonen (smoonen@us.ibm.com)
z/OS Communications Server TCP/IP Development
http://www.linkedin.com/in/smoonen

From:
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To:
Yaron Sheffer <yaronf@checkpoint.com>
Cc:
IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Paul Hoffman 
<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date:
11/25/2009 10:25 AM
Subject:
Re: [IPsec] #117: Hash and URL interop

Yaron Sheffer writes:
> Can you live with:
> 
> Implementations MUST support HTTP.

This is already in the RFC4306.

> The behavior of other URL methods is not currently specified, so
> such methods SHOULD NOT be used in the absence of a Standards Track
> document defining them.

This addition is ok for me, altough I do not think we need to have
*Standard Track* documents to be able to use, I would just say "in the
absens of document defining them". I think having information RFC
telling how to use ftp URLs should be ok, especially as some people
might be against making such document standard track document.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec