RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", August 2008
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8446Source of RFC: tls (sec)
Errata ID: 3191
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Martin Rex
Date Reported: 2012-04-12
Rejected by: Sean Turner
Date Rejected: 2012-04-19
Section Meta-Data says:
Obsoletes: 3268, 4346, 4366 Updates: 4492
It should say:
"Obsoletes: 4366" is factually incorrect, because it is impossible to implement TLSv1.1 (rfc4346) or TLSv1.0(rfc2246) from the TLSv1.2 spec alone. (IPv6 does not obsolete IPv4 and HTTP/1.1 does not obsolete HTTP/1.0 either).
"Obsoletes: 4366" is factually incorrect, because some of the TLS extensions defined in rfc4366 do NOT appear in rfc5246 (and were updated by rfc6066). On top of that, in order to implement TLS extensions for TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1, rfc4366 is indispensible, because it describes the necessary changes to the TLSv1.0 & TLSv1.1 PDUs, information that would be cumbersome to extract from rfc5246 compared to simply using rfc4366.
"Obsoletes: 3268" is factually incorrect, because 3268 is the document needed to implement the AES ciphersuites in implementations of TLS _prior_ to TLSv1.2,
such as TLSv1.0(rfc2246) and TLSv1.1(rfc4346), i.e. to add support for AES ciphersuites to an existing implementation of TLSv1.0, one would use TLSv1.0(rfc2246) plus rfc3268, rather than TLSv1.0 plus some undefined fragments of rfc5246.
If you're looking to implement TLS 1.1 or TLS 1.0 you should be looking in those earlier specifications not RFC 5246.
One RFC can be obsoleted by more than RFC.