[lamps] Re: RFC5280 errata (5802)

Deb,

 

I agree with the erratum 5802.  While one could argue it to be “editorial”, I would say it is a change that should be made sooner rather than later.

 

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

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