[sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6487 (3174)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 03 April 2012 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 F2E3221F8618 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 VaV4cxpiAYZ3 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5642221F860B for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 92C0072E004; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: gih@apnic.net, ggm@apnic.net, robertl@apnic.net, stbryant@cisco.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk, Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com, morrowc@ops-netman.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20120403182631.92C0072E004@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6487 (3174)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:26:43 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6487,
"A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6487&eid=3174

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: David Mandelberg <dmandelb@bbn.com>

Section: 5

Original Text
-------------
   An RPKI CA MUST include the two extensions, Authority Key Identifier
   and CRL Number, in every CRL that it issues.  RPs MUST be prepared to
   process CRLs with these extensions.  No other CRL extensions are
   allowed.

Corrected Text
--------------
   An RPKI CA MUST include the two extensions, Authority Key Identifier
   and CRL Number, in every CRL that it issues.  The Authority Key
   Identifier extension MUST follow the same restrictions as in
   Section 4.8.3 above.  RPs MUST be prepared to process CRLs with
   these extensions.  No other CRL extensions are allowed.

Notes
-----
RFC 6487 doesn't specify any restrictions on the format of the AKI extension in CRLs.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6487 (draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-22)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates
Publication Date    : February 2012
Author(s)           : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, R. Loomans
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG