…0 16 application_layer_protocol_negotiation CH, EE RFC7301 17 status_request_v2 RFC6961 18 signed_certificate_timestamp CH, CR, CT RFC6962 19 client_certificate_type CH, EE RFC7250 20 server_certificate_type CH, EE RFC7250 21 padding CH RFC7685 22 encrypt_then_mac RFC7366 23 exte…
…sed in a certificate chain. Although the Multiple Certificate Status extension [RFC6961] addresses this shortcoming, it is a recent addition without much deployment. o Both CRLs and OCSP depend on relatively reliable connectivity to the Internet, which might not be available to c…
…l (OCSP) messages are carried and therefore updates [ RFC6066 ] and obsoletes [ RFC6961 ] as described in Section 4.4.2.1 . 1.1 . Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDE…
…y the validity of the certificate (e.g., OCSP Status extensions ([ RFC6066 ], [ RFC6961 ])). semi_static_shares list of key_shares that the server offers to the client Oku Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Protected SNI July 2017 signature The signature is a digita…
US
rfc8446
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc8446.html
…ocol (OCSP) messages are carried and therefore updates [RFC6066] and obsoletes [RFC6961] as described in Section 4.4.2.1. 1.1. Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",…
…tType [RFC8446], TLS HandshakeType [RFC8446], and TLS Certificate Status Types [RFC6961] registries; the existing policies (Standards Action for the first three; IETF Review for the last), are appropriate for these one-byte code points because of their scarcity. 2. Terminology Th…
…pe [ RFC8446 ], TLS HandshakeType RFC8446 ], and TLS Certificate Status Types [ RFC6961 ] registries; the existing policies (Standards Action for the first three; IETF Review for the last), are appropriate for these one-byte code points because of their scarcity. . Terminology Th…
…l (OCSP) messages are carried and therefore updates [ RFC6066 ] and obsoletes [ RFC6961 ] as described in Section 4.4.2.1 1.1 . Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED"…
…ocol (OCSP) messages are carried and therefore updates [RFC6066] and obsoletes [RFC6961] as described in Section 4.4.2.1. 1.1. Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",…
…l (OCSP) messages are carried and therefore updates [ RFC6066 ] and obsoletes [ RFC6961 ] as described in Section 4.4.2.1 1.1 . Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED"…
…n as "OCSP stapling") or preferably the Multiple Certificate Status Extension ([RFC6961]), if available. If the system has a shared key in addition to the certificate, then a cipher suite that includes the shared key such as TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA [RFC5489] SHOULD be …
…ponderIDs is not defined anywhere within the document. Quote of this section in RFC6961 section 2.2 (p.4) seem to have fixed this. RFC 6068 , "The 'mailto' URI Scheme", October 2010 Source of RFC : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP Area Assignment: app Errata ID: 7919 Status: Verified Typ…
…ponderIDs is not defined anywhere within the document. Quote of this section in RFC6961 section 2.2 (p.4) seem to have fixed this. RFC 6068 , "The 'mailto' URI Scheme", October 2010 Source of RFC : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP Area Assignment: app Errata ID: 7919 Status: Verified Typ…