[pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (8789 )

--===============4505846138096274684==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000087a419064c33888e"

--00000000000087a419064c33888e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is what the RFC editor has done - deleted 8789 as a duplicate, and
left 5802 as validated.

They aren't sure why the duplicate slipped through.

Deb

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:37=E2=80=AFPM StJohns, Michael <msj@nthpermutation=
.com>
wrote:

> Change the current one to rejected - duplicate.  Leave the other one
> alone.
>
> Neither errata has any meaningful real world impact however they=E2=80=99=
re
> resolved.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 17:33 Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And as Corey has pointed out I validated the same basic text (errata
>> 5802) back in 2024.
>>
>> So now we have the same basic hunk of text both 'validated' and 'HFDU'.
>> That's fantastic.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:15=E2=80=AFPM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]=
> wrote:
>>
>>> Caution: dead horse beating ahead.
>>>
>>> On 3 Mar 2026, at 12:02, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>>>
>>> > Right, but for an errata to be appropriate, the original text has to
>>> actually be "in error", not just that "some of us would write something
>>> different if we were writing it today". I actually find the comment ver=
y
>>> useful, as it correctly indicates that these EKUs were in fact intended
>>> primarily for web usage at the time the document was written.
>>>
>>> "intended primarily for web usage" was true in RFC 2459 in 1999. It was
>>> much less true in RFC 3280 and then RFC 5280. Also, note that the
>>> definition says nothing about "intended primarily for".
>>>
>>> > I've actually suggested a few times that we should fix the situation
>>> by having two new EKUs (one for WebPKI and one for non-web), but there =
are
>>> drawbacks to that approach, and it should be a new RFC draft, not an er=
rata.
>>>
>>> While I fully agree with "should be a new RFC", I think that RFC should
>>> likely be titled "EKUs Considered Meaningless" and should deprecate the
>>> EKUs, not add to the confusion.
>>>
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pkix 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]
>>
>

--00000000000087a419064c33888e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This is what the RFC editor has done - deleted 8789 a=
s a duplicate, and left 5802 as validated.</div><div><br></div><div>They ar=
en&#39;t sure why the duplicate slipped through.</div><div><br></div><div>D=
eb</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:37=E2=80=AFPM StJohn=
s, Michael &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">msj@nthpermutation=
.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Change the current one to rejected - duplicate.=C2=A0=
 Leave the other one alone. =C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">Neither errata has any meaningful real world impact howeve=
r they=E2=80=99re resolved. =C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">Mike</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote" dir=
=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 17:3=
3 Deb Cooley &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">=
[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204=
);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>And as Corey has pointed out I va=
lidated the same basic text (errata 5802) back in 2024.=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>So now we have the same basic hunk of text both &#39;vali=
dated&#39; and &#39;HFDU&#39;.=C2=A0 That&#39;s fantastic.</div></div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>Deb</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:15=E2=80=
=AFPM Paul Hoffman &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_bl=
ank">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">Caution: dead horse beating ahead.<br>
<br>
On 3 Mar 2026, at 12:02, Tim Hollebeek wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Right, but for an errata to be appropriate, the original text has to a=
ctually be &quot;in error&quot;, not just that &quot;some of us would write=
 something different if we were writing it today&quot;. I actually find the=
 comment very useful, as it correctly indicates that these EKUs were in fac=
t intended primarily for web usage at the time the document was written.<br=
>
<br>
&quot;intended primarily for web usage&quot; was true in RFC 2459 in 1999. =
It was much less true in RFC 3280 and then RFC 5280. Also, note that the de=
finition says nothing about &quot;intended primarily for&quot;.<br>
<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve actually suggested a few times that we should fix the situati=
on by having two new EKUs (one for WebPKI and one for non-web), but there a=
re drawbacks to that approach, and it should be a new RFC draft, not an err=
ata.<br>
<br>
While I fully agree with &quot;should be a new RFC&quot;, I think that RFC =
should likely be titled &quot;EKUs Considered Meaningless&quot; and should =
deprecate the EKUs, not add to the confusion.<br>
<br>
--Paul Hoffman<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
pkix mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">pki=
[email protected]</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targ=
et=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
pkix mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">pki=
[email protected]</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targ=
et=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000087a419064c33888e--


--===============4505846138096274684==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KcGtpeCBtYWls
aW5nIGxpc3QgLS0gcGtpeEBpZXRmLm9yZwpUbyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsIHRv
IHBraXgtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK

--===============4505846138096274684==--