[lamps] Re: [pkix] Re: RFC5280 errata (3986)

I think erratum 7634 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7634) also needs to be considered here. It appears that the ASN.1 “modules” in A.1 and A.2 refer to the “signatureValue” field as “signature”, whereas section 4.1 (and erratum 3986) refers to it as “signatureValue”.

 

It would be good if there is alignment between 4.1 and the appendices on the name of this “signature”/”signatureValue” field. My preference would be to name the BIT STRING field that conveys the signature value as “signatureValue” to avoid any ambiguity with the TBSCertificate “signature” field, but that ship has sailed.

 

Thanks,

Corey

 

From: Santosh Chokhani <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 9:08 AM
To: 'Deb Cooley' <[email protected]>; 'IETF PKIX' <[email protected]>; 'LAMPS WG' <[email protected]>
Subject: [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] <mailto:[email protected]> >; LAMPS WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Santosh Chokhani <[email protected] <mailto:[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]