Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7919 (7579)

Hi Paul, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-e

Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8996 (7739)

Greetings, FYI - this report has been deleted as junk (identical text is listed in Original Text, Corrected Text, and Notes, and this text does not even appear in this RFC). Thank you. RFC Editor/rv > On Dec 21, 2023, at 7:02 PM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report

[TLS]Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9147 (8051)

Hi Paul, We consider the proposed change from "initial handshake” to “handshake” in this erratum report to be above 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/erra

[TLS]Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6347 (8089)

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