Hi Sean,
Hi List,
> Errata on obsolete RFCs should be considered according to whether the
error persists in the obsoleting RFC. ... If it does not, it should be
Rejected with an explanation that the error is corrected in the
obsoleting RFC (cited by number).
I'm not sure, but I guess, that assum
> Based on the IESG statement, please let me know by 3 April if you disagree
> with the following proposed
resolutions:
They all look good to me.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hi! We’ve got 8 reported errata on DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6347&rec_status=15&presentation=records
that we, the royal we where we is the WG, need to dispatch. By way of
background, the
IESG has the following statement about processing errata on the IE
