W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Section on https

From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:48:42 +0000
Message-ID: <1070560122.3fcf737a58695@82.195.128.192>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>

> We nuked this due to under-cookedness.  I'm sympathetic to Ian's point, 
> so I've shaken & stirred the existing language slightly; I understand 
> the date is very late, but if lots of TAG members write back and say 
> "yes" maybe it could squeeze in:
> 
> ===============================================================
> 
> The "https" scheme [RFC2818] is an example of a URI scheme that, though 
> commonly implemented by agents, is problematic; it does not differ from 
> "http" except that it indicates that agents should expect to use HTTP 
> over TLS when dereferencing these URIs. However, HTTP agents can 
> negotiate a secure exchange whatever the URI scheme, so the scheme did 
> not provide missing functionality.  Changes in the security policy for 
> a resource identified by an "https" URI may require publication of a 
> new non-https URI. Security policy management can be managed without 
> requiring URIs to change; see the section on URI persistence for more 
> information.

Might it be worth adding something about default port numbers, URL schemes, and 
the IANA policy of no longer assigning ports numbers to secure-form-of-X?

--
Jon Hanna                   | Toys and books
<http://www.hackcraft.net/> | for hospitals:
                            | <http://santa.boards.ie/>
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:48:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT