[pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (8789)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

And as Corey has pointed out I validated the same basic text (errata 5802)
back in 2024.

So now we have the same basic hunk of text both 'validated' and 'HFDU'.
That's fantastic.

Deb

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:15 PM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Caution: dead horse beating ahead.
>
> On 3 Mar 2026, at 12:02, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
> > Right, but for an errata to be appropriate, the original text has to
> actually be "in error", not just that "some of us would write something
> different if we were writing it today". I actually find the comment very
> useful, as it correctly indicates that these EKUs were in fact intended
> primarily for web usage at the time the document was written.
>
> "intended primarily for web usage" was true in RFC 2459 in 1999. It was
> much less true in RFC 3280 and then RFC 5280. Also, note that the
> definition says nothing about "intended primarily for".
>
> > I've actually suggested a few times that we should fix the situation by
> having two new EKUs (one for WebPKI and one for non-web), but there are
> drawbacks to that approach, and it should be a new RFC draft, not an errata.
>
> While I fully agree with "should be a new RFC", I think that RFC should
> likely be titled "EKUs Considered Meaningless" and should deprecate the
> EKUs, not add to the confusion.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>