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

["StJohns, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

Change the current one to rejected - duplicate.  Leave the other one alone.


Neither errata has any meaningful real world impact however they’re
resolved.

Mike

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 17:33 Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>