Can you live with:
Implementations MUST support HTTP. The behavior of other URL methods is not
currently specified, so such methods SHOULD NOT be used in the absence of a
Standards Track document defining them.
Thanks,
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Tero Kivinen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 15:52
> To: Yoav Nir
> Cc: IPsecme WG; Paul Hoffman
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] #117: Hash and URL interop
>
> Yoav Nir writes:
> > Even things that seem obvious like https and ftp require a lot of
> > considerations, like how to verify the certificate in https, or what
> > identity to present in ftp.
> >
> > If someone wants to specify additional URL methods, they can specify
> > then in an I-D.
>
> Yes, and but if the current documents says MUST NOT for them, then they
> can have problems talking to the current implementations.
>
> On the other hand nobody has yet answered to my earlier question what they
> plan to say in the draft. Original text said "allow only http URL", and I
> said MUST NOT would not be ok for me.
>
> Paul said:
>
> > > I agree with only listing HTTP.
>
> which does not tell what he means with that. Do he mean that we only list
> http (currently we do that, we say MUST for http urls and do not list any
> other url methods).
>
> So I would really like to see the exact wording before I can say anything
> else. Or at least better explination what is meant.
> --
> kivi...@iki.fi
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
