RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 6066, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", January 2011

Source of RFC: tls (sec)

Errata ID: 3283

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Brad Wetmore
Date Reported: 2012-07-12
Verifier Name: Sean Turner
Date Verified: 2012-07-17

Section Appendix A says:

Appendix A:     The Server Name extension...(deleted)... It is 
provided that the ServerNameList can contain more than only one 
name of any particular name_type.

It should say:

Appendix A:     The Server Name extension...deleted..It is 
provided that the ServerNameList can contain only one name 
of any particular name_type.

Notes:

Section 3 and Appendix A seem to be conflict with each other. Am I parsing something incorrectly here:

Section 3: The ServerNameList MUST NOT contain more than one name of the same name_type.

Appendix A: The Server Name extension...deleted..It is provided that the ServerNameList can contain more than only one name of any particular name_type.

I think the words "more than" were not supposed to appear in the final RFC.

Errata ID: 4817

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: ResponderIDs type is not defined anywhere.
Date Reported: 2016-10-03
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2016-10-05

Section 8 says:

In the OCSPStatusRequest, the "ResponderIDs" provides a list of OCSP
responders that the client trusts. 

It should say:

In the OCSPStatusRequest, the "ResponderID" provides a list of OCSP
responders that the client trusts.

or clearer 

In OCSPStatusRequest, the "responder_id_list" provides a list of
"ResponderID", OCSP responders that the client trusts.

Notes:

ResponderIDs is not defined anywhere within the document.

Quote of this section in RFC6961 section 2.2 (p.4) seem to have fixed this.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×