Hi Sean, Hi List, > Errata on obsolete RFCs should be considered according to whether the error persists in the obsoleting RFC. ... If it does not, it should be Rejected with an explanation that the error is corrected in the obsoleting RFC (cited by number).
I'm not sure, but I guess, that assumes the error either persists or is corrected in an obsoleting RFC. But of the obsoleting RFC doesn't address it because of more fundamental changes, we need first to decide, if such "stale" errors should be corrected or not. If such stale errors should be corrected, then the most rejects are wrong. About EID 5186: (p17 is 4.2.1 not 4.2.4) AFAIK, for stateless implementations of 4.2.1 requires that the HelloVerifyRequest takes both, the record sequence number and the (handshake) message_seq from the ClientHello. The same applies to the ServerHello best regards Achim Am 20.03.24 um 05:11 schrieb Sean Turner:
Hi! We’ve got 8 reported errata on DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347): https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6347&rec_status=15&presentation=records that we, the royal we where we is the WG, need to dispatch. By way of background, the IESG has the following statement about processing errata on the IETF stream: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/ Based on the IESG statement, please let me know by 3 April if you disagree with the following proposed resolutions: 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3917 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and extensions is added to the ClientHello struct (see s5.3). 2. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4103 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and HelloVerifyRequest is no longer applicable to DTLS 1.3. 3. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5186 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and the section in question was extensively revised; the offending text is removed or no longer applies. 4. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4104 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347and the paragraph in questions was extensively revised; the offending text is removed. 5. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4105 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and the two sections were merged into one. 6. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4642 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347, the field has been renamed, and the field’s explanation updated. 7. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5903 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and the paragraph in questions was extensively revised; the offending text is reworded. 8. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5026 Proposed dispatch: reject Rationale: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347 and the 2119-language for the length is no longer in RFC 9147. Cheers, spt _______________________________________________ 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
