I suspect that this errata should be rejected. RFC 6125 was published months
after RFC 6066 and that makes this addition feel “new" to me and as such it’s
inappropriate to change through the errata process; see [1].
spt
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rf
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6066,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5658
--
Type: Tech
