[pkix] Re: [lamps] RFC5280 errata

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Tue, 04 Jun 2024 15:35:49 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.x509,gmane.ietf.lamps
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Deb Cooley <[email protected]> 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

    > There are 8 that are listed as 'reported'.  3986 5802 5938 6414 6830
    > 7164 7634 7661

3986: looks correct.  I'm not sure why it's technical.

5802: I'm not convinced "TLS WWW server" -> "TLS server"
      I think that I disagree.
      I think openssl is *WRONG*

5938: probably correct, but might need to figure this out in the context
      today of RFC9525.

6414: probably correct, but the correct text probably should be a single
      point: digitalSignature and/or (keyEncipherment or keyAgreement)

6830: I wonder if the word "character" is correct, and if it shouldn't
      be "glyph", but I'm no UTF8 expert.

7164: dunno.
7634: dunno.
7661: seems right.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email protected]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)