Draft spec changes for comments

[Michael Lazar]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:16 PM solderpunk <solderpunk at sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> At gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification-modified.gmi you
> will find a modified version of the current spec.  If you download it,
> along with the current spec from
> gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.gmi, you can `diff`
> them to see the changes.  These changes are a tentative version of those
> I want to make before making a new official update and then, at last,
> freezing the spec again.  I'm making them available now so people can
> point out oversights or suggest improvements.

Nice work! I appreciate all of the effort that you are putting into making the
spec more clear and readable.

A few comments:

> 5.4.2 Link lines
>
> =>[<whitespace>]<URL>[<whitespace><USER-FRIENDLY LINK NAME>]<CR><LF>

I am confused that the <CR><LF> is explicitly called out here and not for any
of the other line types. It makes me think if my client sees a link without the
<CR> in it, I should treat it like a text line instead of a link. There is also
an edge case where the last line of a text/gemini contains a link, but doesn't
have a newline at all. I suggest removing the newline from the link definition
all together since line breaking behavior is already defined elsewhere.

=>[<whitespace>]<URL>[<whitespace><USER-FRIENDLY LINK NAME>]

> 61 CERTIFICATE NOT AUTHORISED
>
> The supplied client certificate is not authorised for accessing the
particular requested resource.  The problem is not with the certificate itself,
which may be authorised for other rsources.

Spelling error, "rsources"

> 62 CERTIFICATE NOT VALID
>
> The supplied client certificate was not accepted because either its validity
start date is in the future or its expiry date has passed.  This indicates a
problem with the certificate in and of itself, with no consideration of the
particular requested resource.

This wording implies that the validity/expiration date are the ONLY two errors
that should ever trigger this error code. There are probably other certificate
errors that should fall into this category like corrupt certificates or invalid
self-signatures.

Astrobotany returns a 6x error message if you attempt to sign-in using a TLS
certificate that does not contain a subject CN field. What error should that
return with the new spec, 61 or 62?

Best,
Michael