[lamps] Re: RFC5280 errata (7634)

Deb,

 

Erratum 7634 should  rejected as is, but should be revised and revision
applied as a technical change.

 

Appendix A.1 should be revised to replace "signature" with "signatureValue".
See erratum 3986 and my e-mail on it for the rationale to make the change.

 

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]