>From what you both are saying, it looks legitimate to document about this
cipher which disappeared. But not here.
As suggested I will post another editorial errata for RFC2712, in an
appendix form.
Eugene.
2018-06-27 5:30 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Kaduk :
> I don't really think this is a useful erratu
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
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