Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MUST verify => MUST NOT accept on fail #3590

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 28, 2020
Merged

Conversation

MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

Addresses @ekr's comments on #3558. While this adds a new MUST NOT, I believe it's editorial because it's simply stating the implicit result of the "MUST verify" in that PR. If anyone disagrees, speak up and I'll change it.

Separately, I think there's a case for this "MUST NOT" to be a "SHOULD NOT," as we all know there are situations in which clients proceed through a certificate warning. It's a reasonable semantic distinction whether the client does not consider the server authoritative but processes the result anyway (MUST NOT), or considers the server authoritative because the user told it to (SHOULD NOT). Opinions on the bikeshed welcome.

@MikeBishop MikeBishop added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -http labels Apr 20, 2020
@MikeBishop MikeBishop merged commit 1c7e133 into master Apr 28, 2020
@MikeBishop MikeBishop deleted the http/explicit_failure branch April 28, 2020 22:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-http editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants