Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5246 (5409)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

First, I think this is editorial.  After all these years, I’m not really sure it’s an interop problem.

Second, if I were making this I would have placed the errata against RFC2712 where the values were assigned.  It’s not really TLS1.2’s place to clear this up.

spt

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 08:28, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5246,
> "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5409
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Eugene Adell <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: Appendix A.5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   Note: The cipher suite values { 0x00, 0x1C } and { 0x00, 0x1D } are
>   reserved to avoid collision with Fortezza-based cipher suites in
>   SSL 3.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   Note: The cipher suite values { 0x00, 0x1C } and { 0x00, 0x1D } are
>   reserved to avoid collision with Fortezza-based cipher suites in
>   SSL 3. The cipher suite value { 0x00, 0x1E } firstly also assigned to
>   Fortezza has been released and has since been be reassigned. 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> RFC 2712 (Addition of Kerberos Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security) in its Draft 01 version introduces three new cipher suites colliding with the three Fortezza ones. The Draft 02 version partially corrects that, by moving the Kerberos cipher suites values by two.
> This omission of the third cipher suite has never been corrected, and this remains in the same state in the final RFC 2712, RFC 2246 and its successors including this one.
> 
> Changing the first Kerberos cipher suite value, or moving all of them, would now not make any sense. Enhancing the note as suggested is probably enough to mention how one Fortezza cipher suite disappeared.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5246 (draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2
> Publication Date    : August 2008
> Author(s)           : T. Dierks, E. Rescorla
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Transport Layer Security
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG