[Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5983)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 14 February 2020 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE00120A75 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:19:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hgze5vd7BynG for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E02A120A72 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 537B6F40709; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:18:53 -0800 (PST)
To: rlb@ipv.sx, jsha@eff.org, cpu@letsencrypt.org, jdkasten@umich.edu, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, rsalz@akamai.com, ynir.ietf@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: thebaker@google.com, acme@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200214181853.537B6F40709@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:18:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/X4sWSeuRT0fV1tuUFMroSbidqBM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:20:44 -0800
Subject: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5983)
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:19:22 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5983 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jason Baker <thebaker@google.com> Section: 9.1 Original Text ------------- A file of this type contains one or more certificates encoded with the PEM textual encoding, according to [RFC7468]. The textual encoding of certificates in this file MUST use the strict encoding and MUST NOT include explanatory text. The ABNF for this format is as follows, where "stricttextualmsg" and "eol" are as defined in Section 3 of RFC 7468: certchain = stricttextualmsg *(eol stricttextualmsg) Corrected Text -------------- A file of this type contains one or more certificates encoded with the PEM textual encoding, according to [RFC7468]. The textual encoding of certificates in this file MUST use the strict encoding and MUST NOT include explanatory text. The ABNF for this format is as follows, where "stricttextualmsg" is as defined in Section 3 of RFC 7468: certchain = stricttextualmsg *(stricttextualmsg) Notes ----- Examples within RFC 8555 indicate that only one EOL should be present between entries in the PEM chain. RFC 7468 already defines a stricttextualmsg as ending with EOL stricttextualmsg = preeb eol strictbase64text posteb eol If a second EOL is to be added before each strict textual message this would result in a blank line between entries. The prior example in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.4.2 indicates an intention for only one EOL marker to be used: -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [End-entity certificate contents] -----END CERTIFICATE----- -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [Issuer certificate contents] -----END CERTIFICATE----- -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [Other certificate contents] -----END CERTIFICATE----- Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18) -------------------------------------- Title : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Publication Date : March 2019 Author(s) : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Automated Certificate Management Environment Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5983) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… James Kasten