[rfc-i] Errata process

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Mon Apr 22 05:51:46 PDT 2013


SM wrote:
>>  
>>but that errata was rejected on purely political grounds.  So I haven't
>>bothered yet to file a similar errata for the incorrect meta-data in rfc4346.
> 
> I don't know whether the errata was rejected on purely political 
> grounds.  Seriously, I would have to read the entire discussion again 
> to form an opinion.

Unnecessary.  Just look at the Verifier Notes.

  http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5246&eid=3191

  --VERIFIER NOTES--
  If you're looking to implement TLS 1.1 or TLS 1.0 you should be
  looking in those earlier specifications not RFC 5246.


Keep in mind how the meaning of the Obsoletes Meta-Data is defined:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223#page-12

   Obsoletes

      To be used to refer to an earlier document that is replaced by
      this document.  This document contains either revised information,
      or else all of the same information plus some new information,
      however extensive or brief that new information is; i.e., this
      document can be used alone, without reference to the older
      document.

The "obsoletes" relationship between specification document applies only,
when the technology described in the old document can be implemented from
the new document _alone_, so that the old document is no longer necessary
at all for any purpose.


The Obsoletes:2246 in rfc4346 and the Obsoletes:4346 in rfc5246
is as (in)appropriate as an Obsoletes: 791 would have been in rfc1883.


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list