[pkix] Re: RFC5280 errata

3986: I agree with this errata.

5802: I agree that these OIDs are being used more generically than they 
are described in the RFC. However, this does not seem to be an errata. 
In RFC 2459 the OIDs were labeled as "TLS Web server authentication" and 
"TLS Web client authentication." (The change from "Web" to "WWW" was 
made in draft-07 of RFC 3280). There was a comment in January 1998 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/8o5cXgf6b0Wp2ivoIdjMUvlEjq0/) 
requesting that the word "Web" be removed from the descriptions, but it 
was not removed. Six drafts were posted after this comment before RFC 
2459 was finished. So, while I would be in favor of the change, I don't 
believe it can be considered an errata.

This errata was also discussed in 2019 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/DQQQ-lujoXWGKMLVSlYmDHzzP9E/), 
where it seems there it should have been marked as "Hold for Document 
Update."

5938: This was also discussed in 2019: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/uA0GhhKlaArFDxCmWdPtQxMGaj4. 
I'm okay with either marking this as editorial or rejecting it.

6414: There was a discussion about this one in 2021: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/rLa6v4kOlD8BQaJBwnmwX4oxsrE/. 
It seems that its status should have been changed already.

6830: I think this one should be rejected. The text is written as "at 
least" since it is specifying a lower bound, not because some characters 
might require more than 4 bytes to encode. However, in 2022 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/3V606PN3spMRYrAtBK1WUI05sj4/) 
Russ and Stefan thought it should be accepted.

7164: This should be rejected. It has been previously discussed: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/YuErTrIPYt7MzTKE6R_KRqNouto/

7634: Last year Russ said that the errata should be accepted (and 
expanded to cover CertificateList): 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/DF9qlJtYdY7TEVTPlIid0eKrOvk/. 
He said that the ASN.1 in the appendix was correct. It does seem, 
however, that changing the appendix to match the body of the document 
would involve less of a change than changing every reference to 
"signatureValue" to "signature" in the body.

7661: This was discussed last year: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/psWOVfIxJhKT5EagEXNzGEGZ47w/. 
As I suggested then, and as Santosh suggested, it would be better to 
just reword the sentence rather than deleting it. But, this errata is 
editorial, not technical.

On 6/4/24 3:04 AM, Deb Cooley wrote:
> 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 
> <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 [email protected]

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