Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3779 (7653)

Hi,

It was a while since I was into the details of ASN.1 and feel a bit 
unsure what is correct here.

I agree with Russ on his thoughts.

/Stefan


On 2023-09-27 17:29, Russ Housley wrote:
> Two thoughts below.
>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3779,
>> "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7653
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Job Snijders <[email protected]>
>>
>> Section: 3.2.3
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Section 3.2.3.4:
>> Any contiguous series of AS identifiers MUST be combined into a single range
>> whenever possible.
>>
>> Section 3.2.3.8:
>> The ASRange type is a SEQUENCE consisting of a min and a max element,
>> and is used to specify a range of AS identifier values.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Section 3.2.3.4:
>> Any contiguous series of AS identifiers MUST be combined into a single range
>> or, whenever possible, represented as a single ASId.
> I don't like "or, whenever possible". That is not well specified and thus unlikely to yield a canonical result. In my view, this text is not an improvement to the existing text.
>
>> Section 3.2.3.8:
>> The ASRange type is a SEQUENCE consisting of a min and a max element,
>> and is used to specify a range of AS identifier values. The min and max
>> elements MUST specify two distinct AS identifiers.
> This statement seems clear to me, and I think it is an improvement over the current text.
>
> Russ
>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The introduction in section 1 stresses that the objective of the encoding rules in section 2 and section 3
>> is to produce unique encoding and minimal size encoding of the information.
>>
>> Allowing ASRanges where the minimum value is the same as the maximum value clearly violates the
>> objective of specifying a canonical form (in order to produce a unique representation); however the
>> specification as-is doesn't forbid min & max to be the same value. The corrected text addresses this.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC3779 (draft-ietf-pkix-x509-ipaddr-as-extn-03)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers
>> Publication Date    : June 2004
>> Author(s)           : C. Lynn, S. Kent, K. Seo
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
>> Area                : Security
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG