Re: [TLS] [Errata Rejected] RFC6176 (5520)

2018-10-11 Thread Ryan Sleevi
You will likely find https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2018OctDec/0013.html useful in explaining the process and purpose of errata, and what it means, in practice, to update the document. This understanding will hopefully make it clear why the errata was rejected. On Thu, Oct 11, 2

Re: [TLS] [Errata Rejected] RFC6176 (5520)

2018-10-11 Thread Eugène Adell
Yes, I know the deficiencies list as reported in this document is not exhaustive but it's worth mentionning this one even in a rejected errata. It had a greater impact than the MITM reset, the latter being mentionned. Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 15:27, RFC Errata System a écrit : > The following erra

[TLS] [Errata Rejected] RFC6176 (5520)

2018-10-11 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6176, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5520 -- Status: Rejected Type: Ed

[TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6176 (5520)

2018-10-11 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6176, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5520 -- Type: Editorial Reported