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

I also agree that signatureValue is better here. Ideally the TBSCertificate
"signature" field would be named differently, but we're a bit stuck with
that. signatureValue also matches section 4.1.1.3. Relative to all that,
the name in the appendix seems to just be a mistake.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:28 AM Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell=
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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] <[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]
>

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