[pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 06 June 2017 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.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 00C651293FD for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 KVESsZ0tfDyq for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6671C128DE7 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B1775B80C6A; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: philliph@comodo.com, rob.stradling@comodo.com, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, ekr@rtfm.com, kent@bbn.com, stefan@aaa-sec.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: philliph@comodo.com, pkix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20170606140248.B1775B80C6A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 07:02:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/utyfJw1MX-E5cvuXi_PRSVzYuCA>
Subject: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029)
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:02:53 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6844, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5029 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Phillip Hallam-Baker <philliph@comodo.com> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME alias record specified at the label X. o If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise o If A(X) is not null, and R(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) = R(A(X)), otherwise o If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise o R(X) is empty. Corrected Text -------------- Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME alias record chain specified at the label X. o If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise o If A(X) is not null, and CAA(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) = CAA(A(X)), otherwise o If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise o R(X) is empty. Thus, when a search at node X returns a CNAME record, the CA will follow the CNAME record to its target. If the target label contains a CAA record, it is returned. otherwise, the CA continues the search at the parent of node X. Note that the search does not include the parent of a target of a CNAME record (except when the CNAME points back to its own path). If the target of a CNAME record is itself a CNAME record, the CA MAY follow it or MAY ignore it. In either case, the search continues at the parent of the label containing the initial CNAME. Processing for DNAME is exactly the same as for CNAME. Note that since DNAME records are implemented by creating the corresponding CNAME records on the fly, it is only necessary for DNAME records to appear on the wire for purposes of DNSSEC. Notes ----- This is a correction of errata 4988 and 4992. It is a breaking change albeit one that is consistent with the text of the following example rather than the algorithm specification. The algorithm described in this errata is the algorithm currently implemented in running code. A separate proposal is being made to change the discovery process. It is thus expected that a new RFC will be issued in due course but not necessarily describing the algorithm shown here. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC6844 (draft-ietf-pkix-caa-15) -------------------------------------- Title : DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record Publication Date : January 2013 Author(s) : P. Hallam-Baker, R. Stradling Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5029) RFC Errata System
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5… philliph@comodo.com
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5… Megan Ferguson