> * The present text (Section 8) says:
>
> Green field applications that are designed to always employ this
>extension, could of course unconditionally mandate its use.
>
> Therefore such "green field" applications (presumably some of the ones
> ready to implement now) effe
I agree that the erratum is an editorial, not technical, change.
It is a slight improvement on the current wording, but is in no way
required for interoperability, since the same information is available
at the source already cited in the paragraph (the TLS ExtensionType
Values subregistry at IANA
