[pkix] Re: RFC5280 errata (3986)

Deb,

 

I agree with erratum 3986.  It should be marked “technical”.  As the author or erratum points out “signature” is a field in the certificate identifying issuer signature algorithm used to sign the certificate.

 

From: Deb Cooley [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 6:04 AM
To: IETF PKIX <[email protected]>; LAMPS WG <[email protected]>; Santosh Chokhani <[email protected]>
Subject: RFC5280 errata

 

Here is the list of errata for RFC 5280.  Are they correct, incorrect, or is there debate about it.  Let me know which it is, and I'll mark them either 'verified', 'rejected', or 'hold for document update'.

 

You can find the details here:  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5280 

 

There are 8 that are listed as 'reported'.

3986

5802

5938

6414

6830

7164

7634

7661

_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]