Hi Ben,
We recommend using “Rejected” with a verifier note to capture the necessary
information.
That way a reader knows that the “error” has been considered and a conclusion
reached versus leaving in “Reported”.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
On Oct 19, 2018, at 7:59 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
It does feel like an artifact of the times, yes.
So I am not sure if there is a better option than "Rejected" (or, I guess,
leave in "Reported" indefinitely).
-Ben
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:34:48PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> An artifact of the times more than an error methinks? The document
An artifact of the times more than an error methinks? The document
does also say: "Currently, DSA [DSS] may only be used with SHA-1." in
the context of talking about use of different hash algorithms for DSA.
Good thing that we obsoleted that RFC and removed DSA, now we don't
have to worry about i
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/eid5535
--
Type: Technical
Rep
