[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 (PST)
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