RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 9420, "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol", July 2023

Source of RFC: mls (sec)

Errata ID: 8031
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : HTML
Reported By: Stefan Schaubeck
Date Reported: 2024-07-15
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-07-15

Section 7.9 says: 

   The parent_hash field in ParentHashInput captures
   information about the nodes above P. the original_sibling_tree_hash
   captures ...

It should say:

   The parent_hash field in ParentHashInput captures
   information about the nodes above P. The original_sibling_tree_hash
   captures ...

Notes:

capital letter needed for first word of second sentence (i.e., "The" not "the").

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 9420, "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol", July 2023

Source of RFC: mls (sec)

Errata ID: 8211
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : HTML
Reported By: Richard Barnes
Date Reported: 2024-12-11

Section 7.4 says: 

   If member B subsequently generates an UpdatePath based on a secret
   "leaf_secret", then it would generate the following sequence of path
   secrets:

It should say:

   If member B subsequently generates an UpdatePath based on a secret
   "path_secret[0]", then it would generate the following sequence of
   path secrets:

Notes:

This text is a vestige of an early method of computing path secrets, which started with a fresh leaf_secret instead of a fresh path_secret[0], the latter being clearly specified just above this text.

Figure 14 should also be updated to remove the leaf_secret and the two arrows emerging from it.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 9420, "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol", July 2023

Source of RFC: mls (sec)

Errata ID: 8032
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Stefan Schaubeck
Date Reported: 2024-07-15
Rejected by: Paul Wouters
Date Rejected: 2024-07-16

Section 7.9.2 says: 

... is equal to the resolution of C with D removed.

It should say:

... is equal to the resolution of C with C removed.

Notes:

I think it should be C instead of D, since C is not a leaf node at all and D is an unmerged leaf.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As per Richard Barnes:
"The resolution of C with C removed" is nonsensical. The only reason C would appear in its own resolution is if the resolution is just [C], in which case removing C yields the empty list. The intent here is correct. If D is non-blank, as this section presumes, then the resolution of C will be [D, D.unmerged_leaves..., stuff_outside_of_subtree_D]. So what this says is that P and D agree on the unmerged leaves under D.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search