Re: [Geopriv] The 's' in HELD

From: Eric Rescorla ^lt;ekr@networkresonance.com>
Date: Wed Apr 30 2008 - 11:00:48 EDT

At Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:40:42 -0500,
Thomson, Martin wrote:
>
> I missed this in the changes for -06. Please forgive my ignorance, but
> I wasn't there at -71 and it appears that only the conclusion was
> captured, not the rationale. The minutes focus on whether there should
> be a URI scheme or not, but make what seems (to me) to be a logical
> leap:
>
> Question: Does this HELD: scheme require TLS? Ans: Yes. Then
> it needs
> to be a HELDS: scheme.
>
> I don't believe that the letter 's' addresses "concerns over referential
> integrity" as stated by the held-06 change-log. So can anyone justify
> the above statement? Is there some IETF guideline I don't know of that
> states that URI schemes for protocols that use TLS have an extra 's'?

No, there's no rule, but it's pretty much the convention.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:00:48 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 10:57:35 EDT