I don't really think this is a useful erratum against 5246; the note there
is providing an explanation for why certain values are not used (and should
not be used). But, now, and even at the time 5246 was published, 0x001e
*is* used, and there's no reason to mention it in this context. One could
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:20:16PM -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> 1. Do you support the working group taking on future work on a pinning
> mechanism (based on the modifications or another approach)?
Yes with a caveat: I don't much care whether pinning work gets done as
an individual submission, a
First, I think this is editorial. After all these years, I’m not really sure
it’s an interop problem.
Second, if I were making this I would have placed the errata against RFC2712
where the values were assigned. It’s not really TLS1.2’s place to clear this
up.
spt
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 08:28
Hi everyone,
The draft below details an extension for Exported Authenticators (EAs) that
allows multiple EAs sent in the same TLS session to be linked into an
authentication chain using backward references.
This gives a form of joint authentication between EAs.
This means that not only does an EA
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5246,
"The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5409
--
Type: Technical
Rep
