Bring RFC2818 into semantics (Mnot 236) #249
Conversation
... and update reference to 5280.
|
I think I've brought the relevant parts across into what seems like the appropriate sections; haven't modified text very much at all. The text that I didn't bring over didn't seem to add much, but I'm happy to be talked around on that. N.B. we'll need to update the reference from 5246 to 8446 in semantics, but that's separable (and I assume we'll do a reference sweep when we're closer to done anyway). |
| </t> | ||
| <t> | ||
| If the hostname does not match the identity in the certificate, user | ||
| oriented clients MUST either notify the user (clients MAY give the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is a "user(-)oriented client" different from a "user agent"?
|
ACK'd. I think additional issue should be separate. PTAL. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am working on this. The PR doesn't quite do what we want, since the normative parts of RFC2818 are actually in the introductory material that was left out, and placing all of the server identification bits in a security section doesn't make sense. I will move it to a subsection of https and then start working on the related issues for establishing https authority.
…cide which parts are definitive and which are just security considerations
… already summarized, to be deleted later
Fixes #236