Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > Picking up on this errata, my read is that the change is > significant. For the change to be verified, it has to be editorial in > nature, which this is not. I can mark it HFDU though.
SNI is mandatory in TLS 1.3. That's fine (it will always be sent), but it's always wrong for the BRSKI-EST connection to the Registrar, so the Registrar has to ignore it. I.e., not be an HTTP 1.1 VirtualHost. I filed it because there was an edge case. Nobody actually tripped over this in testing, but that's probably because everyone who has written code has been on the list. That won't be true forever. So, I'd prefer it was marked Verified so that the XML can be patched. I'm unclear if HFDU does that, I thought not. This concern started it's life in the operational-considerations document (or at least, I thought about when writing it), but then became an errata. It should return to the operational-considerations document (or the merged version), which perhaps will be an Updates: 8995. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
