I believe this fix is correct, but I think it’s editorial instead of technical and can be marked as HFDU because implementers shouldn’t really be too confused by this.
spt > On Nov 11, 2024, at 11:30, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9525, > "Service Identity in TLS". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8173 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Shushang Wen <beard...@gmail.com> > > Section: 6.1.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > With regard to the third example > > Corrected Text > -------------- > With regard to the fourth example > > Notes > ----- > The third example refers to the email service, which is unrelated to the SIP. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9525 (draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-15) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Service Identity in TLS > Publication Date : November 2023 > Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre, R. Salz > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Using TLS in Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
