Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5904)
Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.x509 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Forwarding to the LAMPS WG list since the original seems to have not made it into the PKIX archives. -Ben On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:48:40PM -0800, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7030, > "Enrollment over Secure Transport". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5904 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Justin Cranford <[email protected]> > > Section: 4.1.3 > > Original Text > ------------- > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Notes > ----- > Content-Transfer-Encoding is not a valid HTTP header. RFC 7030 is not compliant with RFC 2616. > > - "MIME Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64" => Base64 Basic with CRLFs > - "HTTP Transfer-Encoding: base64" => Base64 Basic without CRLFs > > This is traceable from RFC 7030 (EST) through RFC 2818 (TLS) to RFC 2616 (HTTP). > > - RFC 7030 (EST): EST specifies how to transfer messages securely via HTTP over TLS (HTTPS) [RFC2818] > - RFC 2818 (TLS): HTTP [RFC2616] was originally used in the clear on the Internet. > - RFC 2616 (HTTP): HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding (CTE) field of RFC 2045. > - RFC 2616 (HTTP): HTTP/1.1 introduces the Transfer-Encoding header field (section 14.41). > > RFC 7030 sections affected are: > > - All references to Content-Transfer-Encoding are not valid: Sections 4.1.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4. > - All references to RFC 2045 are not valid: Sections 4.1.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, and 7.1. > - All references to "base64" need to be updated or removed: Sections 3.5, 4.1.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, and 7.1. > > RFC 7030 fix options: > > Option #1: Change all references from Content-Transfer-Encoding to Transfer-Encoding. A caveat is that "base64" has a different meaning in HTTP (no CRLFs) vs MIME (includes CRLFs). > > Option #2: Remove all references to Content-Transfer-Encoding and base64. Responses would be transmitted as binary. This allows the response to be transported more efficiently without base64 size bloat, and it allows optional use of Content-Length header so the response can be parsed more efficiently knowing the length ahead of time. > > 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