-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.3k
bpo-19180: Updated reference for RFC 1750 and RFC 3280 #148
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -374,9 +374,9 @@ Certificate handling | |
Verify that *cert* (in decoded format as returned by | ||
:meth:`SSLSocket.getpeercert`) matches the given *hostname*. The rules | ||
applied are those for checking the identity of HTTPS servers as outlined | ||
in :rfc:`2818` and :rfc:`6125`. In addition to HTTPS, this function | ||
should be suitable for checking the identity of servers in various | ||
SSL-based protocols such as FTPS, IMAPS, POPS and others. | ||
in :rfc:`2818`, :rfc:`5280` and :rfc:`6125`. In addition to HTTPS, this | ||
function should be suitable for checking the identity of servers in | ||
various SSL-based protocols such as FTPS, IMAPS, POPS and others. | ||
|
||
:exc:`CertificateError` is raised on failure. On success, the function | ||
returns nothing:: | ||
|
@@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ Constants | |
.. data:: HAS_SNI | ||
|
||
Whether the OpenSSL library has built-in support for the *Server Name | ||
Indication* extension (as defined in :rfc:`4366`). | ||
Indication* extension (as defined in :rfc:`6066`). | ||
|
||
.. versionadded:: 3.2 | ||
|
||
|
@@ -2306,14 +2306,11 @@ successful call of :func:`~ssl.RAND_add`, :func:`~ssl.RAND_bytes` or | |
`RFC 1422: Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1422>`_ | ||
Steve Kent | ||
|
||
`RFC 1750: Randomness Recommendations for Security <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1750>`_ | ||
D. Eastlake et. al. | ||
`RFC 4086: Randomness Requirements for Security <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4086/>`_ | ||
Donald E., Jeffrey I. Schiller | ||
|
||
`RFC 3280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3280>`_ | ||
Housley et. al. | ||
|
||
`RFC 4366: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4366>`_ | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. RFC 6066 is the successor to 4366. Please update documentation of HAS_SNI. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done |
||
Blake-Wilson et. al. | ||
`RFC 5280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5280/>`_ | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 5280 is correct. Please update documentation of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done |
||
D. Cooper | ||
|
||
`RFC 5246: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246>`_ | ||
T. Dierks et. al. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This RFC is referenced in the documentation of
RAND_add
. You need to update both occurrences.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.