[Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8994 (7558)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 02 July 2023 21:59 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F378C14CF1F for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5pEa1XuRHrJP for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [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 4878CC14CE2C for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 14072E629D; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, Michael.H.Behringer@gmail.com, sbjarnason@arbor.net, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, tte@cs.fau.de, shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: william.atwood@concordia.ca, anima@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230702215947.14072E629D@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2023 14:59:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Lc_2wZPblTzc345TUEvZ_LmuiU8>
Subject: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8994 (7558)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:59:51 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8994, "An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7558 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: J. William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> Section: 6.2.1 Original Text ------------- ACP nodes MUST NOT support certificates with RSA public keys of less than a 2048-bit modulus or curves with group order of less than 256 bits. They MUST support certificates with RSA public keys with 2048-bit modulus and MAY support longer RSA keys. They MUST support certificates with ECC public keys using NIST P-256 curves and SHOULD support P-384 and P-521 curves. ACP nodes MUST NOT support certificates with RSA public keys whose modulus is less than 2048 bits, or certificates whose ECC public keys are in groups whose order is less than 256 bits. RSA signing certificates with 2048-bit public keys MUST be supported, and such certificates with longer public keys MAY be supported. ECDSA certificates using the NIST P-256 curve MUST be supported, and such certificates using the P-384 and P-521 curves SHOULD be supported. Corrected Text -------------- ACP nodes MUST NOT support certificates with RSA public keys whose modulus is less than 2048 bits, or certificates whose ECC public keys are in groups whose order is less than 256 bits. RSA signing certificates with 2048-bit public keys MUST be supported, and such certificates with longer public keys MAY be supported. ECDSA certificates using the NIST P-256 curve MUST be supported, and such certificates using the P-384 and P-521 curves SHOULD be supported. Notes ----- The second paragraph in the original text appears to be a more carefully-written version of the first paragraph. Therefore the first paragraph should be deleted and the second paragraph retained. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8994 (draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-30) -------------------------------------- Title : An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) Publication Date : May 2021 Author(s) : T. Eckert, Ed., M. Behringer, Ed., S. Bjarnason Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8994 (7558) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Anima] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8994 (… Michael Richardson