[Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9115 (7336)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 06 February 2023 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
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 B7FF2C1575DB for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.84, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RImUBRLMR0E0 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A5BC1575DD for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id C595011E4FC; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:35:52 -0800 (PST)
To: yaronf.ietf@gmail.com, diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com, antonio.pastorperales@telefonica.com, thomas.fossati@arm.com, rdd@cert.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, decoole@radium.ncsc.mil, debcooley1@gmail.com, ynir.ietf@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: cabo@tzi.org, acme@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230206233552.C595011E4FC@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:35:52 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/aWrdA55cAQVTLs4gG6Aox1ucfhw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 07:17:53 -0800
Subject: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9115 (7336)
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 23:35:57 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9115,
"An Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Profile for Generating Delegated Certificates".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7336

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>

Section: Appendix A

Original Text
-------------
   oid = text .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*"


Corrected Text
--------------
   oid = text .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*"


Notes
-----
Backslashes need to be doubled in CDDL strings (as they are done in Appendix B).

An alternative fix would be to replace \. by [.]

Note that the equivalent fix is not required for

   regtext = text .regexp "([^\*].*)|([\*][^\*].*)|([\*][\*].+)"

as the fact that the single backslashes have no effect is irrelevant here — the backslashes are not needed in the character classes [...].
As an editorial enhancement, the backslashes could be entirely removed from this line.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC9115 (draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : An Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Profile for Generating Delegated Certificates
Publication Date    : September 2021
Author(s)           : Y. Sheffer, D. López, A. Pastor Perales, T. Fossati
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Automated Certificate Management Environment
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG