Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3779 (7653)

Dear all,

The errata text has been updated to reflect this conversation:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7653

Good to mark as verified?

Kind regards,

Job

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 at 16:17, Stefan Santesson <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix