[pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5272 (8137 )
Michael StJohns <[email protected]> Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:51:38 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.x509 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============6435675175216325616== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------fLtdH00liUViiWFIeDR4URBw" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------fLtdH00liUViiWFIeDR4URBw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit And this is what I get for going backwards in my emails. I think 6402 fixed it properly - ignore my email. We *really* need a "Rejected - fixed in later RFC" or "Rejected OBE" status. Mike On 10/29/2024 11:43 AM, Deb Cooley wrote: > obsoleted by RFC 6402? > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > opinions? > > Deb > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 6:36 AM RFC Errata System > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5272, > "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8137 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: David von Oheimb <[email protected]> > > Section: C.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > NoSignatureValue contains the hash of the certification request. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > NoSignatureValue contains the SHA-1 hash value of the > certification request. > The hash value given by NoSignatureValue SHOULD be ignored. > > Notes > ----- > The hash value was not sufficiently defined because the choice > of the hash algorithm was not specified. > At that time presumably the use of SHA-1 was implied. > > I suggest requiring SHA-1 here simply for backward compatibility. > >From today's perspective more flexibility may be demanded and > SHA-1 likely no more is the best choice. > > Anyway I see no real value in NoSignatureValue (pun intended), > so it should not matter. > For this reason I propose ignoring the hash value. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is > spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if > necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5272 (draft-ietf-pkix-2797-bis-07) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) > Publication Date : June 2008 > Author(s) : J. Schaad, M. Myers > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > > _______________________________________________ > pkix mailing list [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email [email protected] --------------fLtdH00liUViiWFIeDR4URBw Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">And this is what I get for going backwards in my emails. I think 6402 fixed it properly - ignore my email. <br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">We *really* need a "Rejected - fixed in later RFC" or "Rejected OBE" status.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Mike<br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/29/2024 11:43 AM, Deb Cooley wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAGgd1Od4u_f7yCuQVEtwzvR9_xa+9QJ9D9Ehfe-v0oQeZOza8g@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="ltr">obsoleted by RFC 6402?<br> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM Deb Cooley <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>opinions?</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Deb<br> </div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 6:36 AM RFC Errata System <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5272,<br> "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)".<br> <br> --------------------------------------<br> You may review the report below and at:<br> <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8137" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8137</a><br> <br> --------------------------------------<br> Type: Technical<br> Reported by: David von Oheimb <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>><br> <br> Section: C.1<br> <br> Original Text<br> -------------<br> NoSignatureValue contains the hash of the certification request. <br> <br> Corrected Text<br> --------------<br> NoSignatureValue contains the SHA-1 hash value of the certification request. <br> The hash value given by NoSignatureValue SHOULD be ignored.<br> <br> Notes<br> -----<br> The hash value was not sufficiently defined because the choice of the hash algorithm was not specified.<br> At that time presumably the use of SHA-1 was implied.<br> <br> I suggest requiring SHA-1 here simply for backward compatibility.<br> >From today's perspective more flexibility may be demanded and SHA-1 likely no more is the best choice.<br> <br> Anyway I see no real value in NoSignatureValue (pun intended), so it should not matter.<br> For this reason I propose ignoring the hash value.<br> <br> Instructions:<br> -------------<br> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it <br> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please<br> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or<br> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party <br> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.<br> <br> --------------------------------------<br> RFC5272 (draft-ietf-pkix-2797-bis-07)<br> --------------------------------------<br> Title : Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)<br> Publication Date : June 2008<br> Author(s) : J. Schaad, M. Myers<br> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD<br> Source : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)<br> Stream : IETF<br> Verifying Party : IESG<br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________ pkix mailing list -- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> To unsubscribe send an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <p><br> </p> </body> </html> --------------fLtdH00liUViiWFIeDR4URBw-- --===============6435675175216325616== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KcGtpeCBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QgLS0gcGtpeEBpZXRmLm9yZwpUbyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsIHRv IHBraXgtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============6435675175216325616==--