Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5246 (5409)

2018-06-29 Thread Eugène Adell
>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

Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5246 (5409)

2018-06-26 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
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

Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5246 (5409)

2018-06-26 Thread Sean Turner
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