Hi, The original text was not wrong. Originally TLS 1.2 and before defined a PRF for key derivation, and there exist multiple instantiations with different hash functions (e.g. SHA-256 and SHA-384). So each instantiation could be considered a different function.
Your suggested text can also be considered correct as there is only construction in TLS 1.2, but I don't think it is worth marking the text as in error. I suggest to reject this. Kind regards, Peter On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 02:08:11AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8446, > "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6122 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Ben Smyth <resea...@bensmyth.com> > > Section: 1.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > The key derivation functions have been redesigned. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The key derivation function has been redesigned. > > Notes > ----- > > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8446 (draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28) > -------------------------------------- > Title : The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 > Publication Date : August 2018 > Author(s) : E. Rescorla > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Transport Layer Security > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
