Hi Russ, On 24.04.26 16:21, Russ Housley wrote:
This should be HFDU, since 8773bis is already in the RFC Editor's queue.
As I have pointed out in the other thread on the response to LS 2141 that accidentally includes RFC8773, it may create some confusion. I believe it would be helpful to mark it as "Verified" since we have already discussed and agreed on it for RFC8773bis.
In my reading of [0], KFDU reads: Held for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC.As we already agreed, implementing the key schedule as in RFC8773 is incorrect. This results in the whole key schedule being wrong. Classifying it as "not a necessary update" does not seem correct.
RFC8773bis is indeed in the RFC Editor's queue but it would be helpful to avoid this confusion in the mean time and for me to avoid repeating it each time RFC8773 comes up.
Thanks. Best regards, -Usama [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpc-errata-process/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
