Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6066 (5658)

I suspect that this errata should be rejected. RFC 6125 was published months after RFC 6066 and that makes this addition feel “new" to me and as such it’s inappropriate to change through the errata process; see [1]. spt [1]

Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6176 (5536)

Paul, I think you can mark this one as verified. I don’t think anybody is really confused by not citing 2446 in the 1st sentence but the quoted sentence is in RFC 2446 so as suggested the sentence is still true. spt > On Oct 19, 2018, at 23:33, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following

Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8448 (5645)

Hi! This has been lingering for a while, I tend to think we could mark it as HFDU (hold for document update). spt > On Feb 28, 2019, at 16:20, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8448, > "Example Handshake Traces for TLS 1.3". > >

[TLS] [Errata Rejected] RFC5246 (5036)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5036 -- Status: Rejected

[TLS] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7905 (5251)

The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC7905, "ChaCha20-Poly1305 Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5251

Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8447 (6009)

Paul, You can go ahead and mark this one as Verified. The name of the 0 value is “X509”. spt > On Mar 7, 2020, at 13:08, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8447, > "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS". > >

Re: [TLS] TLSFlags ambiguity

Please see RFC 1700, the section on data notation. The most significant bit in a byte /octet or word is always bit 0. A collection of bytes representing a set of bits should number from 0 or 0x80 hex as a mask for the first byte. While 1700 was obsoleted by the protocol registries, I believe

[TLS] Weekly github digest (TLS Working Group Drafts)

Issues -- * tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni (+1/-0/0) 1 issues created: - Mention that the server identity may be revealed by ServerHellp (by emanjon) https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/612 * tlswg/tls-flags (+1/-3/1) 1 issues created: - Refer to