Errata

Verified (1)

RFC 5705 inline-errata

Source of RFC: tls (sec)

Updated by: RFC8446, RFC8447, RFC9846

Errata-ID: 4395

Status:
Verified
Type:
Technical
Reported By:
Rick van Rein
Date Reported:
2015-06-16
Verified by:
Deb Cooley
Date Verified:
2026-10-12

Section 4 says: 

If no context is provided, it then computes:

           PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, label,
               SecurityParameters.client_random +
               SecurityParameters.server_random
               )[length]

   If context is provided, it computes:

           PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, label,
               SecurityParameters.client_random +
               SecurityParameters.server_random +
               context_value_length + context_value
               )[length]

It should say:

If no context is provided, it then computes:

           PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, label,
               SecurityParameters.client_random +
               SecurityParameters.server_random
               )[0..length-1]

   If context is provided, it computes:

           PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret, label,
               SecurityParameters.client_random +
               SecurityParameters.server_random +
               context_value_length + context_value
               )[0..length-1]

Notes:

The current notation is not in line with that of RFC 5246, where the [0..N-1] notation is used on a PRF outcome in Sections 7.4.9 and 8.1 and similar [A..B] notation is also used elsewhere.  This makes me believe that the current text is technically wrong, and not in line with the intentions stated informally below it,

   The output is a pseudorandom bit string of length bytes generated
   from the master_secret.
Report New Erratum