> Merging the thread this early didn't help this conversation. I am sure I have
> missed replying to some of my points that you responded to.
Sorry about that, I did not realise it.
There is one important part that was missed, I put it in this message separate
from the previous reply to your me
> Again, think carefully about the data you are recording. Also, TLS1.2 allows
> renegotiation in an active connection to do things like change the cipher
> algorithm, ask the client to send its certificate, and so on. Are you going
> to record those? Client authentication seems like something i
erhaps a possibility would be "application/tls-record"? This is similar to how
"application/dns-message" is defined in [RFC 8484 section
6.](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8484#section-6) as a "single
message of the DNS on-the-wire format defined in [
milar to the TLS URI)
> "ssl://" host ":" port
This is currently not in an RFC, but we would like to start using it for
writing WARC files. Does the use of these two Media Types and URIs make sense,
or are there obvious problems with them?
If the reactions to this idea/proposal are positive, I plan on moving forward
with supporting this in Wget-AT for writing WARC files.
Best regards,
arkiver
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
