Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> agile. But SNI is one such example, where the pledge does need to
> signal the right info (SNI) to enable "cheaper" cloud registrars, aka:
> those not owning a separate IPv4 address. See e.g.: AWS cost for IPv4
> address.
Right, but it's self-righting.
A manufacturer that uses an SNI-only cloud registrar and does not do SNI will
fail immediately: they won't get out of the lab. And the manufacturer
controls both initial sides of this.
Where we could go into trouble is when there are 307 redirects.
> Lets just agree on the final text for this errata so Rob can close the
> book on it.
Pledges MUST include SNI for 1.2 and 1.3.
(Registrar's with provisional-TLS connections MUST ignore the SNI: they can
not be virtual-hosted)
If you didn't like my errata text, then let's come back to that.
(I wish errata was on gitlab)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6642
says:
Held for Document Update by: Rob Wilton
Date Held: 2024-01-15
so we get another chance to fix the text when we do a document update.
Does the text that is there upset you?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
