Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5652 (7863)

This sentence is related the the first sentence in Section 5.2, which says: "The content is represented in the type EncapsulatedContentInfo ...."

I thing the current wording or the revised wording are both fine.

Russ


> On Mar 21, 2024, at 11:30 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5652,
> "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7863
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: heasley <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: 5.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> "... and the content
>   field of the EncapsulatedContentInfo value MUST be omitted."
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> "... and the eContent
>   field of the EncapsulatedContentInfo value MUST be omitted."
> 
> Notes
> -----
> No 'content' field exists and I do not think this is referring to another structure.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5652 (draft-ietf-smime-rfc3852bis-00)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
> Publication Date    : September 2009
> Author(s)           : R. Housley
> Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
> Source              : S/MIME Mail Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG