Thank you for verifying the errata. I changed the status to verified after marking it as editorial.
There is another errata on this RFC, 4633. Is that errata correct? Best regards, Kathleen On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Xiaoyin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you everyone for your explanation! Now I see why it is editorial. > > > Xiaoyin > > ________________________________ > From: TLS <[email protected]> on behalf of Bodo Moeller > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:32:50 PM > To: Watson Ladd > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Kathleen Moriarty; Chris > Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783) > > >> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and > > >> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the >> perspective of this standard. > > They certainly are, but that just means that, in that (unintended) reading > of the spec, it's using very contrived language to discuss something that's > not subject to being specified here per se (where more commonly you'd find > informal language describing the "inner thoughts" of the implantation). > >> I doubt anyone was confused by what it >> said, but either way it needs to get fixed, > > Exactly. My point is just that, either way, it can be seen as an editorial > error rather than a technical one, so there's no need to block the erratum > on that decision > > Bodo -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
