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
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
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
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