Thank you everyone for your explanation! Now I see why it is editorial.
Xiaoyin ________________________________ From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Bodo Moeller <bmoel...@acm.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:32:50 PM To: Watson Ladd Cc: he...@florent-tatard.fr; sean+i...@sn3rd.com; Kathleen Moriarty; Chris Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; <tls@ietf.org>; vipul.gu...@sun.com Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783) > No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and > whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the > perspective of this standard. They certainly are, but that just means that, in that (unintended) reading of the spec, it's using very contrived language to discuss something that's not subject to being specified here per se (where more commonly you'd find informal language describing the "inner thoughts" of the implantation). > I doubt anyone was confused by what it > said, but either way it needs to get fixed, Exactly. My point is just that, either way, it can be seen as an editorial error rather than a technical one, so there's no need to block the erratum on that decision Bodo
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
