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

2016-08-24 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
t; Cc: he...@florent-tatard.fr; sean+i...@sn3rd.com; Kathleen Moriarty; Chris > Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; <tls@ietf.org>; vipul.gu...@sun.com > Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783) > > >> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server

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

2016-08-24 Thread Russ Housley
I agree this is an editorial errata, not a technical one. ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

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

2016-08-24 Thread Salz, Rich
Strongly agree this is an editorial fix, not a technical one. ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

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

2016-08-24 Thread Bodo Moeller
Sean Turner : > I think it ought to editorial because I don't think an implementer would > have gotten it wrong; > It's also not strictly technically wrong. The client TLS implementation hands the ClientKeyExchange message to the component of the client that actually sends

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

2016-08-24 Thread Sean Turner
..@ietf.org> on behalf of Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:19 PM > To: <tls@ietf.org> > Cc: he...@florent-tatard.fr; sean+i...@sn3rd.com; b...@openssl.org; Kathleen > Moriarty; ch...@corriente.net; nel...@bolyard.com; vipul.gu...@sun.com > Su

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

2016-08-23 Thread Xiaoyin Liu
..@florent-tatard.fr; sean+i...@sn3rd.com; b...@openssl.org; Kathleen Moriarty; ch...@corriente.net; nel...@bolyard.com; vipul.gu...@sun.com Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783) This looks correct, but I'd change the "type" to editorial. Unless anybody disagrees with by n

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

2016-08-23 Thread Sean Turner
This looks correct, but I’d change the “type” to editorial. Unless anybody disagrees with by next Monday, I’ll ask Stephen to accept this. I’ve also submitted an issue in the 4492bis github repo to get this fixed in the new draft. I’d submit a PR, but I’m still digging out from being absent