- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
- To: tsahara@iij.ad.jp, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
- Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iana@iana.org
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9110, "HTTP Semantics". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7105 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Tomoyuki Sahara <tsahara@iij.ad.jp> Date Reported: 2022-08-26 Verified by: Francesca Palombini (IESG) 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. -------------------------------------- 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
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2022 15:53:57 UTC