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

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

On 7/29/12 1:00 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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
I agree with Stewart's suggestion.

Steve