[lamps] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFC5280 errata (7961)

Hi Santosh
   Just to point out a small typo in your email. I believe you mean to
refer to 7661 instead of 7961.
7961 is filed by me for RFC6960.

Thanks
Himanshu

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 6:55 AM Santosh Chokhani <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Deb,
>
>
>
> Erratum 7961 points to an issue.  Either the Erratum should be accepted as
> is or if the authors agree, the following text is recommended:
>
>
>
> “Two CAs exchange information used in establishing a cross-certificate.  A
> cross-certificate is a certificate issued by an Issuer CA to a Subject CA
> that contains the Subject CA’s public key used for verifying signature on
> the certificates and CRLs issued by the subject CA.”
>
>
>
> *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]
>

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