[pkix] Re: RFC5280 errata (7164)
"Santosh Chokhani" <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:25:38 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.x509,gmane.ietf.lamps |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Deb, The erratum 7164) should be rejected. A CRL could contain IDP and DP could be absent and other subfields in the IDP could preset and thus CRL would not be full and complete CRL. 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]