On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 16:51 -0800, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> > Original Text
> > -
> >If a compatible TLS server receives a Supported Groups extension
> > from
> >a client that includes any FFDHE group (i.e.,
On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 16:51 -0800, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Original Text
> -
> If a compatible TLS server receives a Supported Groups extension
> from
> a client that includes any FFDHE group (i.e., any codepoint
> between
> 256 and 511, inclusive, even if unknown to the se
I am in favor of this erratum, or rather of correcting it
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> On instruction from the WG chairs, or by acclamation, I will
> approve this erratum. Silence OTOH means inaction:-)
>
> S
>
> On 16/01/17 01:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > For tho
On instruction from the WG chairs, or by acclamation, I will
approve this erratum. Silence OTOH means inaction:-)
S
On 16/01/17 01:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> For those interested in the guts, this came up when discussing
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330618 where Hubert
> note
For those interested in the guts, this came up when discussing
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330618 where Hubert
noted that NSS is not compliant with this requirement.
On 16 January 2017 at 13:51, RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC791
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7919,
"Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport
Layer Security (TLS)".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7919&eid=490
