Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6277 (5892)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 06 November 2019 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51912120869 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:11:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 cHrgGmVep_bX for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:11:50 -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 A7E1F12087B for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:11:50 -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 xA6HBT83020205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:11:33 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:11:29 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: sts@aaa-sec.com, hallam@gmail.com, rdd@cert.org, kent@bbn.com, stefan@aaa-sec.com, housley@vigilsec.com, pkix@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191106171129.GS61969@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20191102012613.82ED7F40742@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191102012613.82ED7F40742@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/D0eSxdEmexpqwTstCQLxVY9WjeU>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6277 (5892)
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 17:11:54 -0000

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 06:26:13PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6277,
> "Online Certificate Status Protocol Algorithm Agility".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5892
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
> 
> Section: Appendix A.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
>     sigIdentifier       AlgorithmIdentifier{SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM, {...}},
>     pubKeyAlgIdentifier SMIMECapability{PUBLIC-KEY, {...}} OPTIONAL  }
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
>     sigIdentifier       AlgorithmIdentifier{SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM, {...}},
>     pubKeyAlgIdentifier AlgorithmIdentifier{PUBLIC-KEY, {...}} OPTIONAL}

Is this going to encode in the same way as the 1988-syntax version (from
Appendix A.2):

     PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
        sigIdentifier        AlgorithmIdentifier,
        pubKeyAlgIdentifier  SMIMECapability OPTIONAL
        }

-Ben

> Notes
> -----
> The original ASN.1 definition does not compile.  The correction uses a syntax that is aligned with RFC 6960, which obsoletes RFC 6277.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6277 (draft-ietf-pkix-ocspagility-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Online Certificate Status Protocol Algorithm Agility
> Publication Date    : June 2011
> Author(s)           : S. Santesson, P. Hallam-Baker
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG