The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6347,
"Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8089
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by:
In regard to moving RFC 8773 to standards track the formal analysis triage
group has provided input on the need for formal analysis which was posted
to the list [1]. The authors have published a revision of the draft [2] to
address some of this feedback, however the general sentiment of the triage
Hi Paul,
We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so
we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set
the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).
Notes:
* RFC 6347 has
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024, 19:30 Joseph Salowey, wrote:
> Please respond to the list with a brief reason why you think the document
> requires formal analysis or not. This call will end on September 16, 2024.
>
What's the goal?
Security guarantees: Do the work.
___
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Deirdre Connolly, a
Chair of the TLS Working Group.
-
Working Group Name: Transport Layer Security
Area Name: Security Area
Session Requester: Deirdre Connolly
Number of Sessions:
I don't think this is an erratum. I agree it would be better, but I don't
think that rises to "error".
-Ekr
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:17 AM Rebecca VanRheenen
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as
> editorial, so we changed the Type to “Techni
