IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (6414)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 28 January 2021 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 999E43A0C32 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:39:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Izomm5cDXvi4 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 293843A0BFD for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.239] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 10SIZwAn059310 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:35:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.239]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>, "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, IETF PKIX <pkix@ietf.org>, Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>, David Cooper <david.cooper@nist.gov>, wpolk@nist.gov, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:39:30 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <E28BA0FD-DF38-449C-BEC9-080017F69597@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210128180858.GC21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20210128154420.4B40EF40715@rfc-editor.org> <B9FCFEBF-78B0-4C82-9902-67D4E832C0C7@vigilsec.com> <MW3PR17MB41222702CF6B9D8440B468D3AABA9@MW3PR17MB4122.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <A077CE9B-35E3-4FF2-BA3A-213122D59843@vigilsec.com> <MW3PR17MB412259BEBBCC54B30D86DFC5AABA9@MW3PR17MB4122.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <1342CD21-C794-4E39-9DD0-93F52DF48708@vigilsec.com> <20210128164621.GX21@kduck.mit.edu> <7CD2A55A-61BC-43AF-BA6A-B72A3F6A99FD@vpnc.org> <20210128180858.GC21@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/i2Nruv7P2W07gDnWGzjjVHw3ois>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (6414)
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:39:44 -0000

On 28 Jan 2021, at 10:08, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:34:51AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> I propose that this erratum be rejected outright. It is clear that 
>> the
>> current text is unclear, particularly with the passage of time. The 
>> way
>> to correct that is with a new Internet Draft that updates 5280, with 
>> a
>> lot more words than just the limited space in the ASN.1 comment.
>
> So, your stance is that the current text is unclear, which should be
> remedied by a document update?  I'm not sure how that implies 
> "rejected" as
> opposed to "hold for document update"...

Because I don't think that the document update will update the meaning 
just by modifying these ASN.1 comments. In fact, I think it should not. 
Instead, there should be a paragraph or two about the meaning, and then 
update the ASN.1 to not include comments.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email