Closed seanturner closed 1 year ago
I checked diff for 1st and last commit. I believe followings should be our contributions (I am not sure if we need to include all of minor fixes). On the reviewing process, I found some minor fix and I believe we should add Russ for acknowledgment so I will make new PR for that.
Support migration for OCSP clients -- allows new OCSP client to use SHA-256 -- support migration from byName field to byKey field
additional fixes -- MUST NOT include whitespace or any other characters
minor fixes of description -- changes in section numbers. -- "must realize that the provided value is not authenticated" to "MUST handle such requests as if the requestorName field were absent" -- fix http header example. (make initial letter of http headers to be capital, add hyphen for HTTP-data. -- update dates in the example timestamp value.
update references -- RFC 2560 to RFC 6960 -- RFC 2616 to RFC 9110 and RFC 9111 -- add reference of RFC 3548 for OCSPRequest Structure, RFC 3986 for URL encoding, and RFC5280 for AIA extension. -- RFC4366 to I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis -- updates section numbers for reference links
I drafted text, but I feel like it is to detail, and we may curve out some of them (e.g. just say "fix syntax of http headers"), or bring changes to before security consideration.
https://github.com/tadahik/RFC5019bis/compare/changesFrom5019
Oh I definitely think we do not need to be this detailed.
Ok, I would leave that branch and make shorter one. I believe content of that branch may used for reviewing process later.
I made shorter one. https://github.com/tadahik/RFC5019bis/compare/briefDesctiptionOfChanges
LGTM!
Need to add new last para in s1 that highlights the changes made in this version of the document, because I know we'll get an IESG discuss on that point ;)