IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636AC12D76A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-STAbgFzDDd for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22f.google.com (mail-ua0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8DB312D10D for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 74so47964092uau.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Dzb9j9oxGV+cxo2llY9ee36unH8TInmWvI+wvOD6eAU=; b=n/ct3b/WOphrUOFe3EKAWXhIm+t/2nPI/R7SRrKrlf0nRSi+9nk/pmT63DvAp2I7/j R2UJafJvoah5VRyt8FsqMeWznlxB2fdOm1PIuRZiQ1AUbYalrjr5ec1dCoPp4AS3YGzH hOI6aHe6kOlY9m858Oxma0x49Bw6oVuFJzpxELgmL1rbCUYG5rpDpB1AXB3j4D1Uflqe TJ30zEj8CsVYfJcZxvclwr2Z2iUfe6AbVm07VnX42wNo4Dy9ZFKl9ix9VGQhbq9WzqWN dgeGfQiDzMqz2v/qej4O8EMdo/mU/jayObDfTtcfoQpmta0Y8bEoO6gI53vBBJ/lSsQW EWOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Dzb9j9oxGV+cxo2llY9ee36unH8TInmWvI+wvOD6eAU=; b=E3UcO7rZbeA7yCB8xPmZxgKBZsZG8H9c1oQjvoEmy1KDAkmVFV5wvTyklF+4DoUdhS 0zV6mtZQr0gCdU3YgbAD1va28Sd9BCHh6TszbsfRQvjSa6qQuBsHoKedrVZjUnIiVmtq MkKVNg8STScyEzUm14wIfbLY1S3YLsyJie//AXygyKdseUKhDITJYqLeHEQkJTsehN+w 5hgb3L5m9lg47V7iqi1F8/LvCAOsIvX+HelKIedIT9SToLShjRDjPZKy4OW7kagJegVJ KIhP+OZBPfMAveL/oC+0kEgQOFIu+HQw3Ynqb6rUVM78UJjWyTk/EHmZpM91Qn7fblWC 5j7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutwsbyLDHItO3m7lOd55q9soYqJ9N9hvJ0faKH5vqpHmYy+yTQ5o3b1uiTIk71R4VGpVcB/IIE/YMQTbg==
X-Received: by 10.31.74.5 with SMTP id x5mr2734605vka.42.1472068675881; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.1.228 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR15MB077877002193D0D119C002ABFFEA0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160819171346.A5E32B80DC6@rfc-editor.org> <9976B7F9-B1F3-4549-A93B-7B940A61C7F5@sn3rd.com> <CY1PR15MB077818F8C3110170A5EA910EFFEA0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <57F439CA-1CBA-4F52-863E-E69D3A78704C@sn3rd.com> <CADMpkcLfnHBEhnLoV2mdR---XB7Gt4c7XqHugAgjR6PubCU_DA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0c=E8U6MH28t4qvKtFfCGr1Mi59bdFVA5-QjATzGMo8YTg@mail.gmail.com> <CADMpkcKLwivwEzfJArjEEipYkwUcVc1MYmYrAHLfbpDRxx-GAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR15MB077877002193D0D119C002ABFFEA0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:57:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6mdyWZX1euyTks6VXgdFP6QWCfobPCbQ0vtdsMN=sWLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/441brOSwCgOvFMToTumVBkOuBYc>
Cc: "hello@florent-tatard.fr" <hello@florent-tatard.fr>, "sean+ietf@sn3rd.com" <sean+ietf@sn3rd.com>, Chris Hawk <chris@corriente.net>, Nelson B Bolyard <nelson@bolyard.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>, "vipul.gupta@sun.com" <vipul.gupta@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:57:58 -0000

Thank you for verifying the errata.  I changed the status to verified
after marking it as editorial.

There is another errata on this RFC, 4633.  Is that errata correct?

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com> wrote:
> Thank you everyone for your explanation! Now I see why it is editorial.
>
>
> Xiaoyin
>
> ________________________________
> From: TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bodo Moeller
> <bmoeller@acm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:32:50 PM
> To: Watson Ladd
> Cc: hello@florent-tatard.fr; sean+ietf@sn3rd.com; Kathleen Moriarty; Chris
> Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; <tls@ietf.org>; vipul.gupta@sun.com
> Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
>
>
>> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and
>
>
>> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the
>> perspective of this standard.
>
> They certainly are, but that just means that, in that (unintended) reading
> of the spec, it's using very contrived language to discuss something that's
> not subject to being specified here per se (where more commonly you'd find
> informal language describing the "inner thoughts" of the implantation).
>
>> I doubt anyone was confused by what it
>> said, but either way it needs to get fixed,
>
> Exactly. My point is just that, either way, it can be seen as an editorial
> error rather than a technical one, so there's no need to block the erratum
> on that decision
>
> Bodo



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email