Re: HTTPS URI scheme (i128)

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> We are going to define the https scheme in part 1 because
> the syntax needs to be updated along with the http scheme.
> RFC 2818 is a dead duck.

"Obsoletes 2818" is clearly better for 2616bis readers than
"updates 2818", and five additional pages more won't hurt
2616bis.  Most of it will be covered by the registration
template for https.  Is anybody here an SSL / TLS expert ?

 Frank

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 01:19:03 UTC