Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5983)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 25 February 2020 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 A4F6D3A1788 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 1NSBhKffcekB for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E383A1784 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01P1kMXP017841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 20:46:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:21 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rlb@ipv.sx, jsha@eff.org, cpu@letsencrypt.org, jdkasten@umich.edu, rdd@cert.org, rsalz@akamai.com, ynir.ietf@gmail.com, thebaker@google.com, acme@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200225014621.GD5814@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20200214181853.537B6F40709@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200214181853.537B6F40709@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/h4eZyzqm9N9B2H3ieRjJ5newK8E>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:29:26 -0800
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:46:38 -0000

Authors, should this be marked Verified?

Thanks,

Ben

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:18:53AM -0800, RFC Errata System wrote:
> 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