- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 12:16:50 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 26.08.2022 um 08:17 schrieb RFC Errata System: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110, > "HTTP Semantics". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7105 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Tomoyuki Sahara <tsahara@iij.ad.jp> > > Section: B.1. > > Original Text > ------------- > B.1. Changes from RFC 2818 > > None. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > B.1. Changes from RFC 2818 > > The use of CN-ID has been deprecated. > > Notes > ----- > In RFC2818: > > If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present, that MUST > be used as the identity. Otherwise, the (most specific) Common Name > field in the Subject field of the certificate MUST be used. > > CN-ID may be used (when a subjectAltName of type dNSName is not present). > > In RFC9110: > > A reference identity of type CN-ID MUST NOT be used by clients. > > CN-ID is not used at all. It is a change from RFC2818. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19) > -------------------------------------- > Title : HTTP Semantics > Publication Date : June 2022 > Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. > Category : INTERNET STANDARD > Source : HTTP > Area : Applications and Real-Time > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG I believe thi erratum is correct - we forgot to mention the change in "Changes from RFC 2818". Context: <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/pull/685> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2022 10:22:35 UTC