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

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 272D121F8745 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 2suMpcLOhHEk for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9303521F8744 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:57497 helo=COMSEC.local) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1SvXE6-000Nfl-1n; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:24:22 -0400
Message-ID: <501571C5.7030200@bbn.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:24:21 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
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]> <50156C32.4030909@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50156C32.4030909@cisco.com>
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
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 17:24:33 -0000

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