[pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5272 (8137)

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 08 January 2025 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
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 D6887C169412 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:31:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 w6z1_A-0UOaX for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64CAC15199D for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7b9e2c1e3baso1521685a.3 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jan 2025 09:31:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; t=1736357496; x=1736962296; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K07SfbLLSgC8Zd3ceUtLfkHmBTKuDGTl8gF8Qhfitzk=; b=irJsltorCtVZaRHeYnil+kitdDuJOp0qgFa5EoOcsN5l6r6p7zf4mdlSYzM9y/1/L/ uDLzRFjevDF2Gkndu34RDtZVhLEez/sebUbodlN8XHLcH41kgS0rEmuLYbDzz0tqL3cT CqknhWur4dl0UNPCvm8eu1W/DaJ9MdvCgJf8k=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736357496; x=1736962296; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K07SfbLLSgC8Zd3ceUtLfkHmBTKuDGTl8gF8Qhfitzk=; b=EsiK25D0hc+/cRRsMVgywcd5DZ3se+k7PG0xE6nvkFq7t+U85kZpnV0XihtmL80sFa ixuBkQViWn1Z+l706YcarhZ/3O9ZlTxDBxZoSoFuS2gRZP/eDVYvnHFB5sX5mO0CHwbn 6s6jETiTT73bbWviEquhiJ7z2RwNDIgpdumHxgnCtyXUKoW5NlfzVpgs5P/dYafy26g3 ovv5arSts6SK6XLQ351FAxrrvdj7y9J9gWL7Dh7d9qZv7VFXY9ljFoIIPEhCOGIc/mtW YVbxYAYM57NSgitcsMihHiB2tILkRO81QfSi+ZLmwTr2uMVNWayCP19wjHnkyUIcHy0s wXWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxWQYupNiclsXeAz3z8+2ohPbESumLrbzmBVeTj8SPcJV/M8g0O y6MEfnj4XfELTn8Y8E6vYm7445hJpybceObS+3lSRyjzjGzbDa4coNojYRHflVpwWLb9rMNreBE V
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct3JhMqHYXTmuN+MJqKO7Jc66N6DDNyck4Ga6PIHTrlfP24nBOgNjPMOXa8eDF zBcu29Z1HkK+A5R1J52FFBFnRkkIAj3l0j1FzOufS37c72xJa0cbmqHG09d5JRP8ynBDPNSzYgm e57az/HZH/d67hIX/zofRfxNx3FEFfQCq4JotL7LKxg/jWK8zUs84TJODPEZiA9RZuEZ6SZ9nn8 p8kor7IQ7XFOWk02dQ6omKkBEcegtalkpfNPDMqAYZLNENQbCEO15O7pzIHaBWFJXW/ZinAg+gX Pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH8GK6E+ITBdc4hMYsYdWd5Yz25yc2U4S05ZicA/WDIN6YpIZqx365/Zhj9nk4jLGZZWHG0xw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:240d:b0:7b1:e0f:bf9b with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7bcd97afd59mr498170785a.45.1736357496523; Wed, 08 Jan 2025 09:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4040:252a:8d00:74f5:3b8b:82ff:3ca5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-7b9ac2df471sm1698847085a.42.2025.01.08.09.31.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2025 09:31:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Message-Id: <E1E15893-8D5B-4AF6-BF84-D72AA4A0EA89@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0C1BBDB4-A025-44AC-BEB1-EF270B3F2711"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.300.87.4.3\))
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 12:31:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <edc4c3db-2a6a-429f-ab9c-9713229a30c5@nthpermutation.com>
To: Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
References: <20241012103614.AF2F83B873@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <CAGgd1OdJjPFDrK1gU_Phow_-z-HomBBHFQZeUHAE_S7i1UPjVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGgd1Od4u_f7yCuQVEtwzvR9_xa+9QJ9D9Ehfe-v0oQeZOza8g@mail.gmail.com> <edc4c3db-2a6a-429f-ab9c-9713229a30c5@nthpermutation.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.300.87.4.3)
Message-ID-Hash: T3MDM6WF23BYRR7DQ7PI2ZJDQZVGFQYD
X-Message-ID-Hash: T3MDM6WF23BYRR7DQ7PI2ZJDQZVGFQYD
X-MailFrom: sean@sn3rd.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pkix.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5272 (8137)
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/MqoS3Aj4EzaZOHp2roMAdktzBsI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pkix-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pkix-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pkix-leave@ietf.org>

Deb,

Since we are in the process of obsoleting RFC 5272 [1], I think we should mark this HFDU even though RFC 6402 fixed this.

spt

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5272bis/

> On Oct 29, 2024, at 1:51 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
> 
> And this is what I get for going backwards in my emails.   I think 6402 fixed it properly - ignore my email. 
> 
> We *really* need a "Rejected - fixed in later RFC" or "Rejected OBE" status.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 10/29/2024 11:43 AM, Deb Cooley wrote:
>> obsoleted by RFC 6402?
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com <mailto:debcooley1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> opinions?
>>> 
>>> Deb
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 6:36 AM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5272,
>>>> "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)".
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8137
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Technical
>>>> Reported by: David von Oheimb <David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com <mailto:David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com>>
>>>> 
>>>> Section: C.1
>>>> 
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> NoSignatureValue contains the hash of the certification request. 
>>>> 
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> NoSignatureValue contains the SHA-1 hash value of the certification request. 
>>>> The hash value given by NoSignatureValue SHOULD be ignored.
>>>> 
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> The hash value was not sufficiently defined because the choice of the hash algorithm was not specified.
>>>> At that time presumably the use of SHA-1 was implied.
>>>> 
>>>> I suggest requiring SHA-1 here simply for backward compatibility.
>>>> >From today's perspective more flexibility may be demanded and SHA-1 likely no more is the best choice.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway I see no real value in NoSignatureValue (pun intended), so it should not matter.
>>>> For this reason I propose ignoring the hash value.
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions:
>>>> -------------
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC5272 (draft-ietf-pkix-2797-bis-07)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)
>>>> Publication Date    : June 2008
>>>> Author(s)           : J. Schaad, M. Myers
>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pkix mailing list -- pkix@ietf.org <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to pkix-leave@ietf.org <mailto:pkix-leave@ietf.org>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list -- pkix@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to pkix-leave@ietf.org