Subject: [Rats] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9999 (9088)
From: Deb Cooley <[email-masked]>
To: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:35:13 -0400
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>

Thanks, I've added it to my 'to do' list.

Deb

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 3:10 AM Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 6:05 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9999,
> > "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Conceptual Message Wrapper (CMW)"
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9088/
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Steven Bellock <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Section 6 and 9.6.2 says:
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Section 6
> > ----------
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547091, cbor-collection>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547092, signed-cbor-cmw>
> >
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547093> ; bytes(cmw+json collection)
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547094> ; bytes(cmw+jws)
> >
> > Table 4
> > --------
> >    +============+===============================+
> >    | Tag Number | Tag Content                   |
> >    +============+===============================+
> >    | 1668547091 | bytes .cbor cbor-collection   |
> >    +------------+-------------------------------+
> >    | 1668547092 | bytes .cbor signed-cbor-cmw   |
> >    +------------+-------------------------------+
> >    | 1668547093 | bytes-wrapped json-collection |
> >    +------------+-------------------------------+
> >    | 1668547094 | bytes-wrapped signed-json-cmw |
> >    +------------+-------------------------------+
> >
> > Figure 7
> > ---------
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547091, cbor-collection>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547092, signed-cbor-cmw>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547093> ; bytes(cmw+json collection)
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547094> ; bytes(cmw+jws)
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > Section 6
> > ----------
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547091, cbor-collection>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547092> ; bytes(cmw+json collection)
> >
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547093, signed-cbor-cmw>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547094> ; bytes(cmw+jws)
> >
> > Table 4
> > --------
> > Tag Number      Tag Content
> > 1668547091      bytes .cbor cbor-collection
> > 1668547092      bytes-wrapped json-collection
> > 1668547093      bytes .cbor signed-cbor-cmw
> > 1668547094      bytes-wrapped signed-json-cmw
> >
> > Figure 7
> > ---------
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547091, cbor-collection>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547092> ; bytes(cmw+json collection)
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-cbor<1668547093, signed-cbor-cmw>
> >    $cbor-tag /= tag-cm-data<1668547094> ; bytes(cmw+jws)
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Under the assumption that Table 3 and
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters
> > are the authoritative IDs, then the RFC9277-calculated tags for cmw+json
> and cmw+cose
> > are swapped in the given section, table, and figure.
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9999 (draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Conceptual
> Message Wrapper (CMW)
> > Publication Date    : July 2026
> > Author(s)           : H. Birkholz, N. Smith, T. Fossati, H. Tschofenig
> > Category            : Proposed Standard
> > Source              : rats (sec)
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> The erratum is correct.  We need to swap(1668547092, 1668547093) in
> the three places noted by Steven.
>
> cheers!
> --
> Thomas
>