[OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8520 (7819)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 23 February 2024 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061DEC14F6A0 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:48:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.658
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7fbDve0782R for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com []) (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 2FB15C14F5E6 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id EF6001D5C; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:48:47 -0800 (PST)
To: lear@cisco.com, rdroms@gmail.com, dromasca@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de, jclarke@cisco.com, zhoutianran@huawei.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240223174847.EF6001D5C@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:48:47 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/57WgmvKh-Hl9pLDGazZzPmww24I>
Subject: [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8520 (7819)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:48:52 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8520,
"Manufacturer Usage Description Specification".

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Technical
Reported by: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>

Section: 13.1

Original Text
Note: A MUD file may need to be re-signed if the signature expires.

Corrected Text
Note: A MUD file may need to be re-signed if the certificate needed
to validate the signature expires.

The signature does not expire, but the certificate does.

This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

RFC8520 (draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-25)
Title               : Manufacturer Usage Description Specification
Publication Date    : March 2019
Author(s)           : E. Lear, R. Droms, D. Romascanu
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Operations and Management Area Working Group
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG