> On Aug 24, 2016, at 15:57, Kathleen Moriarty
> wrote:
>
> There is another errata on this RFC, 4633. Is that errata correct?
How about you mark it as “held for document update”. I believe the 4492bis
draft will address 4633.
spt
___
TLS mailing
; Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; ; vipul.gu...@sun.com
> Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
>
>
>> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and
>
>
>> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the
>> perspecti
; Nelson B Bolyard; ; vipul.gu...@sun.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and
> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the
> perspective of this standard.
They certainly are,
I agree this is an editorial errata, not a technical one.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Strongly agree this is an editorial fix, not a technical one.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and
> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the
> perspective of this standard.
They certainly are, but that just means that, in that (unintended) reading
of the spec, it's using very contrived language to discu
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Bodo Moeller wrote:
> Sean Turner :
>>
>> I think it ought to editorial because I don't think an implementer would
>> have gotten it wrong;
>
>
> It's also not strictly technically wrong. The client TLS implementation
> hands the ClientKeyExchange message to the co
Sean Turner :
> I think it ought to editorial because I don't think an implementer would
> have gotten it wrong;
>
It's also not strictly technically wrong. The client TLS implementation
hands the ClientKeyExchange message to the component of the client that
actually sends something to the server
gt; Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:19 PM
> To:
> Cc: he...@florent-tatard.fr; sean+i...@sn3rd.com; b...@openssl.org; Kathleen
> Moriarty; ch...@corriente.net; nel...@bolyard.com; vipul.gu...@sun.com
> Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
>
> This looks
riarty; ch...@corriente.net; nel...@bolyard.com; vipul.gu...@sun.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
This looks correct, but I'd change the "type" to editorial. Unless anybody
disagrees with by next Monday, I'll ask Stephen to accept this.
I've als
This looks correct, but I’d change the “type” to editorial. Unless anybody
disagrees with by next Monday, I’ll ask Stephen to accept this.
I’ve also submitted an issue in the 4492bis github repo to get this fixed in
the new draft. I’d submit a PR, but I’m still digging out from being absent
l
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4492,
"Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security
(TLS)".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4492&eid=4783
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
