Draft spec changes for comments

[solderpunk]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:50:16PM -0400, Michael Lazar wrote:

Thanks a lot for the feedback!
 
> > 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>]

Good catch, this makes perfect sense.  This probably should have been
spotted and changed at the same time as clarifying CR/LF requirements.

> > 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"

Fixed, thanks!

> > 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.

Yep, very true, I will fix this.

> 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?

Hmm.  The subject field itself is actually allowed to be empty, I think.
So strictly speaking such a certificate is not "invalid" in any absolute
sense.  Sice a non-empty subject CN is a requirement of Astrobotany, I
guess 61 is the correct code.  The CN requirement should be made clear
in the META.

Cheers,
Solderpunk