[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-tls
Subject:    Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6066 (3283)
From:       Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2012-07-17 4:25:37
Message-ID: CAF4+nEFCQ-91mJt+6tYPpt0JrsjbV0doPPK0+1ms_=_x+MJJcg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I believe this Errata is correct. The words "more than" should not be
there in the appendix. I would guess that at one point it said "no
more than one" and somehow, in changing to "only one", it got garbled.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:10 AM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6066,
> "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6066&eid=3283
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Brad Wetmore <bradford.wetmore@oracle.com>
> 
> Section: Appendix A
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Appendix A:     The Server Name extension...(deleted)... It is provided that the \
> ServerNameList can contain more than only one name of any particular name_type. 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Appendix A:     The Server Name extension...deleted..It is provided that the \
> ServerNameList can contain only one name of any particular name_type. 
> Notes
> -----
> Section 3 and Appendix A seem to be conflict with each other.  Am I parsing \
> something incorrectly here: 
> Section 3:   The ServerNameList MUST NOT contain more than one name of the same \
> name_type. 
> Appendix A:     The Server Name extension...deleted..It is provided that the \
> ServerNameList can contain more than only one name of any particular name_type. 
> I think the words "more than" were not supposed to appear in the final RFC.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6066 (draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension \
> Definitions Publication Date    : January 2011
> Author(s)           : D. Eastlake 3rd
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Transport Layer Security
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]