IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2246 (3481)

Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> Mon, 12 August 2013 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=66VO=RZ=acm.org=bmoeller@srs.kundenserver.de>
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 722AB21F9F40 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.984, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65HLHPFQeMDH for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682F121F942D for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MTvWL-1VZ4xj0w65-00Qnw2; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:19:26 +0200
Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id f8so8962698obp.8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nhF9HBXRfCCVGipszqr1T4E9plrhU1380i/ZGOlS84E=; b=TNztS//Z15eNqcLOkRHSBl5wwMhi6bQdpOop0p4aLyc5k5fXFk686t2u/m45zPm01N 7BBpeXUCaYSj6CdMqakha7VPOmBDs1gv20AZqKZW9LPHo03OuNXu/0qjiPyHTFPhSSvz jkkhbe/izEfx9BJHfpl2uxnJUtHdA+HzX/Z3b/MfvoG1C188Uf+b92hMFv4Mf2YySh/f RP66nprqYV2gKkVWt7KwzsSscqAT51nar+VSog9wGInzFd0GAi9px5hum+Z/RE4Ce2wA wyExMRVKgGnr6e1F+anf8oe5n1LOfqNiq+rthYuEE53g79h6cy8D+a6bFmRfARFCgXs3 BCHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.143.5 with SMTP id sa5mr262633obb.80.1376342364983; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.172.145 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52094A48.5010304@ieca.com>
References: <20130208220123.1011DB1E004@rfc-editor.org> <52094A48.5010304@ieca.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:19:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CADMpkc++NOhSYL=9LENOUum-Zuo7Gw5yu4hfdfP0L7SGuOSYbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff25464c11b9804e3c6ad5c"
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:CqA42A08g4Pcmwf41oaYIsusqRQz8XxSS15zOSuEKNc EInU2S6jGeqJ+9thy2LleA83w+JmAwtPOjTaFrQt3BueoLODbJ 8VlmeY+7KDdEpnRuMPCg8t988nfsRFTFFccUN4nKjVVCUOEU0S 26TqLWdpR47jsNZtkQIgdkBtA0BGwuC78o2+s7yVTqTd9818Cz qL/3rsqxf4MRfkZ0TkSNSUtIbf9lcpof1xR698DugqVpygoL3Z Q9IFCH6E6ussJiBDm9wNyCUfeB3pfZhxeG4fUdoX3HLwcJgR6s kSMQ1oyLyiuVjFuQmyYwlIyyCtaSqFDgRuckQZymUVlydetGqu DKqCyDzqzhqzmRgvqf1HBEWWEMwJB3ZuF3NcmxO3kUnXDTK+C9 fhBHuhnrK0BASD+dFzmGLWEIC/QTF6LRApWkBFyEHskdaaqBP2 rKsTm
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2246 (3481)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:19:33 -0000

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

> Yes I know this is an errata against TLS 1.0, but should it be adopted?
>

Unless there are significant philosophical objects against adopting errata
for RFCs that have already been superseded, this should be adopted.
(There's an interoperable base of TLS 1.0 implementations that behave as
described.)

Bodo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email