This report looks to be valid and straight forward. Any objections to verifying and accepting this errata report?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:16 AM RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7170, > "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5765 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Jouni Malinen <j...@w1.fi> > > Section: 4.2.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > M > > Mandatory, set to one (1) > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > M > > 0 (Optional) > > > Notes > ----- > Authority-ID TLV is used only as an Outer TLV (in TEAP/Start) and Section > 4.3.1 mandates all Outer TLVs to be marked as optional ("Outer TLVs MUST be > marked as optional"). As such, Section 4.2.2 is incorrect in claiming the > Authority-ID TLV to use M=1. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7170 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) > Version 1 > Publication Date : May 2014 > Author(s) : H. Zhou, N. Cam-Winget, J. Salowey, S. Hanna > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : EAP Method Update > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
