The one concrete one that I remember (and can't attribute to the HTMLized version dropping stuff) is RFC 7030 only in the header.
I guess we can check what we want to do to DTLS as well, as RFC 6347 is listed as Updates:-ed but that's the DTLS 1.2 spec. (6347 itself confusingly claims in the body text to "update DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS 1.2" but has an "Obsoletes: 4347" header.) I don't see what specifically we update in 6347. -Ben P.S. sorry for top-post; Outlook's quoting options are "bad" and "worse" On 11/11/19, 12:07, "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: Hiya, On 11/11/2019 19:53, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > This is a "preliminary" review only because there's some strangeness > relating to the Updates: (and Obsoletes:) headers, and any changes there > would make me need to go and recheck the relationship of this document to > the ones listed. So, I haven't done any of that yet, in an attempt to only > have to do it once. > > Specifically, there's skew between the list of documents updated in the top > header and the list in Section 1.1. Ah, the fun:-) Will take a look when I get some time, but might be whilst in or en-route to Singapore. If you've any examples you noted that might help, Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
