Subject: RE: HTTPS URI scheme (i128), was: https URI scheme

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:38:02 -0500

Julian,

The abstract of part 1 says that part 1 defines the HTTPS scheme, but
Section 3.2.2 says that another document defines it. I don't know how to
reword things to make it non-contradictory--maybe just take out "and HTTPS"
from the abstract?

Section 3.2.2 is titled "http URL". Because of the added reference to RFC
2818 for HTTPS, a new title would be better. I recommend "The HTTP and HTTPS
URI Schemes," to match the text in the abstract of part 1. Also, the
paragraph that says 'The "https" scheme is defined in [RFC2818].' would be
better off without the "Note:" prefix, since "Note:" doesn't actually mean
anything.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:50:04 +0200

> reword things to make it non-contradictory--maybe just take out "and HTTPS"

Yes, I noticed that as well. As long as we do not define HTTPS we 
probably should take it out.

> better off without the "Note:" prefix, since "Note:" doesn't actually mean

Hm, no. The section now mentions https, but that's it. I don't think 
that merits renaming it.

The "Note:" prefix matches other parts of the specs where we want to 
make clear that this is just a note, not part of the normative text. I 
think this applies here as well.

BR, Julian

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:17:41 -0700

> probably should take it out.

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.

....Roy

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:20:36 +0200

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