Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (6414)

On 28 Jan 2021, at 10:08, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:34:51AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> I propose that this erratum be rejected outright. It is clear that 
>> the
>> current text is unclear, particularly with the passage of time. The 
>> way
>> to correct that is with a new Internet Draft that updates 5280, with 
>> a
>> lot more words than just the limited space in the ASN.1 comment.
>
> So, your stance is that the current text is unclear, which should be
> remedied by a document update?  I'm not sure how that implies 
> "rejected" as
> opposed to "hold for document update"...

Because I don't think that the document update will update the meaning 
just by modifying these ASN.1 comments. In fact, I think it should not. 
Instead, there should be a paragraph or two about the meaning, and then 
update the ASN.1 to not include comments.

--Paul Hoffman