Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5107)

Sean Turner <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.x509
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Note that this issue was discovered during IESG review of draft-turner-est-extensions.  Alexey, Panos, Dan, Max, and myself worked on the wording.  I’m hoping it can stew for a couple of days and then be marked as accepted.

spt

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 16:16, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7030,
> "Enrollment over Secure Transport".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5107
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Sean Turner <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: 3.2.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Add the following is as the last paragraph of Section 3.2.1:
> 
>  [RFC2616] indicates "HTTP does not use the
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding (CTE) field of RFC 2045”; nevertheless, this
>  document was published specifying the use of the
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding header with a value of ‘base64' in Sections
>  4.1.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, as well as in the examples in
>  Appendices A.1-A.4.   As HTTP is binary-clean transport, there is no
>  need to indicate this for HTTP-based protocols like EST.  EST server
>  implementations SHOULD omit the Content-Transfer-Encoding header if
>  they know a priori that EST clients do not rely this field.  EST
>  Clients SHOULD expect that the Content-Transfer-Encoding header will
>  be absent unless they have an a priori agreement with the EST server.
>  The mechanism to establish this client dependency is out-of-scope.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> EST, which is an HTTP-based protocol, erroneous used CTE.  This errata addresses this error.
> 
> Note that the text was reviewed by a RAI AD as well as multiple EST implementors.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7030 (draft-ietf-pkix-est-09)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Enrollment over Secure Transport
> Publication Date    : October 2013
> Author(s)           : M. Pritikin, Ed., P. Yee, Ed., D. Harkins, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.