W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1999

RE: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:17:36 -0400
To: "Jeffrey Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>, "IETF Transport Layer Security WG" <ietf-tls@lists.consensus.com>
Cc: "Rohit Khare" <rohit@ics.uci.edu>, "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <001c01bf157d$50f82c00$954768c0@oyster.agranat.com>

> From: Jeffrey Schiller [mailto:jis@mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 23:10
> To: IETF Transport Layer Security WG
> Cc: Rohit Khare; Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com
> Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed
> Standard
>
>
> Looks like we have an additional problem. The IANA comments:
>
> >draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade-02.txt, and has the following comment
> with
> >regards to the publication of this document.
> >
> >	In the "References" section, there are three works in progress:
> >
> >		[3] "HTTP over TLS"
> >		[5] "WebDAV Advanced Collections Protocol"
> >		[8] "Tunneling TCP based protocols throught Web proxy
> >                     servers"
> >
> >	Current status?  Are any of them normative?
> >
> >
> >Joyce K. Reynolds
> >IANA Liaison to the IESG
>
> [3] definitely appears to be normative. Can we get Eric's Document
> advanced (This question is to the working group)?

[3] documents existing practice for https
[5] is noted because it defines an HTTP status code - we could remove it
from this document and let them add an entry to the registry we are
creating.
[8] is an expired draft, referenced only because it was the original
description - this document replaces it as far as standards track is
concerned.
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 14:21:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:34 EDT