Re: [TLS] Last Call: RFC 2818 (HTTP Over TLS) to Proposed Standard

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 6/1/12 1:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>> My rationale was that it's in the downref registry and that there's
>>>> 66 or so RFCs that refer to 2818 and a lot of them are normative.
>>>> If it ends up that folks prefer the 2818bis -> PS coupled with 2818
>>>> -> Historic.  I'd be all right with that too.
>>>
>>> That seems the best way to go, given how much things have changed in
>>> the last decade.
>>
>> Agreed. I don't see any harm in having lots of RFCs pointing to this
>> entry in the downref registry, and it seems better to update 2818 than
>> to have people thinking that 2818 is standards-track as it is today.
>
> +1.
>
> Moving an RFC to Proposed Standard should come with a discussion of
> whether that RFC is OK as-is.  It looks like RFC2818 isn't/

FWIW, I don't really care what the status of this RFC is.

That said, it looks kinda silly to have a document that describes a huge chunk
of how the Internet works and that is referred to normatively all over
the place be Informational because the IESG of 2000 thought that
HTTP and HTTPS should run over the same port.

-Ekr