Re: [jose] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (4554)

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

That works for me

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 5:59 AM
> To: John Bradley <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-
> editor.org>; Michael Jones <[e-mail]>; Nat Sakimura <n-
> [e-mail]>; Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>; Karen
> Odonoghue <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (4554)
> 
> Thanks for your advice on this.
> 
> How about I mark it as 'editorial' and hold for document update, then add
a note
> that says the normative section is correct and this is just an HTML markup
from
> txt issue?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Dec 8, 2015, at 8:47 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, Rfcmarkup strikes again:)
> >
> > The canonical version is txt and that is correct.
> >
> > The link is probably correct in the XML version.
> > One day we will publish RFC from the XML and can get rid of these stupid
> HTML markup from TXT issues.
> >
> > Worth keeping a note of if we do do an errata and can publish in XML.
> >
> > Until that time nothing to do for it.
> >
> > John B.
> >
> >> On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My inclination is to say that this is not a valid Errata.  The
> >> complaint is really against the tools and not the document as the
> >> complaint is dealing with the line, which is not part of the RFC,
> >> rather than with either technical or editorial content of the document.
> >>
> >> I believe that the original text is sufficiently clear as to which
> >> section is being referred to for a human.  But it would not be clear
> >> to a tool.  The suggested change may or may not fix that for the tool
> >> and a better approach is probably to start using the xml source for
> >> the generation of the html page rather than to fix up the text version.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 7:17 AM
> >>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (4554)
> >>>
> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7515, "JSON
> >>> Web Signature (JWS)".
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >>> You may review the report below and at:
> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7515&eid=4554
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >>> Type: Editorial
> >>> Reported by: Simon <[e-mail]>
> >>>
> >>> Section: 2
> >>>
> >>> Original Text
> >>> -------------
> >>>  Base64url Encoding
> >>>     Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set
> >>>     defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with all trailing
> >> \\'=\\'
> >>>     characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2) and without the
> >>>     inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other additional
> >>>     characters.  Note that the base64url encoding of the empty octet
> >>>     sequence is the empty string.  (See Appendix C for notes on
> >>>     implementing base64url encoding without padding.)
> >>>
> >>> Corrected Text
> >>> --------------
> >>>  Base64url Encoding
> >>>     Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set
> >>>     defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with all trailing
> >> \\'=\\'
> >>>     characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2 of RFC 4648) and
> >>>     without the inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other
> >>>     additional characters.  Note that the base64url encoding of the
> >>>     empty octet sequence is the empty string.  (See Appendix C for
> >>>     notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding.)
> >>>
> >>> Notes
> >>> -----
> >>> in the html version https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515 the link on
> >> \\"Section
> >>> 3.2\\" goes to Section 3.2 of RFC7515 but it should go to Section
> >>> 3.2 of RFC4648. Not sure how the automatic link generation is made
> >>> (or is it
> >> manual?),
> >>> so i would propose explicitly saying \\"Section 3.2 of RFC 4648\\".
> >>>
> >>> 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status
> >>> and
> >> edit the
> >>> report, if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >>> RFC7515 (draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-41)
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >>> Title               : JSON Web Signature (JWS)
> >>> Publication Date    : May 2015
> >>> Author(s)           : M. Jones, J. Bradley, N. Sakimura
> >>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >>> Source              : Javascript Object Signing and Encryption
> >>> Area                : Security
> >>> Stream              : IETF
> >>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> >