On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:12 AM Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote:
> > > On 30 Nov 2020, at 14:08, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:36 PM Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 30 Nov 2020, at 01:51, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Dear TLS WG, >> > >> > I think RFC 7627 should update 5056, 5705, and maybe a few more. >> > >> > I noticed these omissions when looking at the kitten draft to use TLS >> > 1.3 exporters. Having these updates would hopefully make clear what >> > uses need to be updated, or at least show where there might be a >> > problem. >> >> On that topic I have to repeat an earlier question that I did not see any >> response to. >> >> SIP is declared in RFC 3261. This draft updates 3261. Does this mean >> that the SIP standard is modified? To be SIP compliant, do one has to >> follow this document too (after publication)? >> >> I’ve gotten a few pointers earlier that ended up with “It’s unclear what >> an >> RFC update means”. >> >> I would really like it to mean that in order to be SIP compliant, you can >> not >> use deprecated versions of TLS. >> > > Me too. Unfortunately, my understanding of the way things work is that > there's > no formal thing meaning "SIP Compliant". Rather, one complies with a bunch > of > RFCs and so people wouldn't be "RFC XXXX compliant", which isn't really > what > is wanted here. > > > Ok - but does this change the meaning of being “RFC 3261” compliant? > Not to my knowledge. Or do we have to say “RFC3261 compliant with the addition of RFC XXXX” > where XXXX is this document? > Yes. -Ekr Sorry to be picky, but I’m interested in understanding the effect of these > updates to a long list of RFCs. > > > /O > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
