IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6487 (3238)

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E71A21F86D5 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MJ8QjdYJbyGT for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF4421F86CA for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=1060; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343581251; x=1344790851; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wmNFmB/s5QDUa0cjeZSjgYQlcOwUiQVO6rr7jt/4i6w=; b=Q6t51BfVK0fk5OweVrw7Eo82pBPKOXJGlZtlRjfmHqNBvAfSnPj40iQU LW1Qv6E/AxzrxTB/57cEmUnWyZGRDGNR/eP4z/ydAGCfxfqDc8DpnOunM sw2oQ3fH1kLi5aSdkxsi8UsrYTS2Q14wFfMpl/bMz+cEMBwAD0DzD/iId A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAIBrFVCQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABFtiuDM4EHgiABAQEEEgECI0ABEAsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcBAR6Ha5l+g0gQm0OLUIZiA5VJjieBBGKCYA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,675,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="6990384"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2012 17:00:38 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6TH0ce4025805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:00:38 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q6TH0YFn020636; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:00:35 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <50156C32.4030909@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:00:34 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
References: <20120531145543.F363272E004@rfc-editor.org> <2BAE4694-60C2-4301-BFAF-05DF49054BF4@cisco.com> <m2vcjcq7t9.wl%randy@psg.com> <p06240802cbf289a57437@[128.89.89.114]> <m2obozox0k.wl%randy@psg.com> <p06240802cbf2beb777af@[128.89.89.114]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240802cbf2beb777af@[128.89.89.114]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6487 (3238)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:00:53 -0000

On 04/06/2012 20:37, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 9:35 AM -0700 6/4/12, Randy Bush wrote:
>>  >> while i agree that the change is correct, this is not an erratum, 
>> but an
>>>>  actual change in semantics.
>>>  The text that was there could not be acted upon by a CA or an RP
>>>  requesting a cert. The cited field are in KU, not EKU, and were
>>>  already described in the immediately preceding paragraph. So, this
>>>  text, which is a MAY, just provides guidance (for a CA or RP re a cert
>>>  request) consistent with what is already described earlier in this
>>>  RFC.
>>
>> i do not intend to have a tantrum or even make a fuss.  i just think we
>> need to be careful what we call errata.
>>
>> randy
>
> No problem.  I submitted this as an errata at Sean Turner's suggestion.
> He found the bug in the RFC and brought it to the attention of Geoff 
> and me.
>
> Steve 


The "right thing to do" seems to be to confirm this as a technical 
errata so that
implementers are aware of the issue.

Does anyone disagree?

Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email