This issue is still open:
TLS 1.3 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446) has several mentions of
the RFC6962 signed_certificate_timestamp TLS extension. Since 6962-bis
intends to obsolete RFC6962 and replace signed_certificate_timestamp
with a new TLS extension (transparency_info), should we also add a
sentence to the 6962-bis Abstract along these lines...
"This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
and 1.3 implementations."
?
Do we even need to mark 6962-bis as Updating RFC8446?
(Can an Experimental RFC update a Standards Track RFC?)
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
