Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5652 (2026)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

The proposed correction is appropriate, and does not result in a 
technical change to the RFC. I have no objection to this errata.

spt

RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5652,
> "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5652&eid=2026
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 5.3, pg. 15
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> [[  around the page break from page 14 to page 15: ]]
> 
>       digestAlgorithm identifies the message digest algorithm, and any
>       associated parameters, used by the signer.  The message digest is
>       computed on either the content being signed or the content
> << page break >>
>       together with the signed attributes using the process described in
>       Section 5.4.  The message digest algorithm SHOULD be among those
> |     listed in the digestAlgorithms field of the associated SignerData.
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>       Implementations MAY fail to validate signatures that use a digest
>       algorithm that is not included in the SignedData digestAlgorithms
>       set.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       digestAlgorithm identifies the message digest algorithm, and any
>       associated parameters, used by the signer.  The message digest is
>       computed on either the content being signed or the content
>       together with the signed attributes using the process described in
>       Section 5.4.  The message digest algorithm SHOULD be among those
> |     listed in the digestAlgorithms field of the associated SignedData.
>       Implementations MAY fail to validate signatures that use a digest
>       algorithm that is not included in the SignedData digestAlgorithms
>       set.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Rationale:
>   There's no such ASN.1 type/object named "SignerData" in relevant
>   specifications.   Text should refer to "SignedData" instead.
>   This is an undetected legacy flaw inherited literally from RFC 2630,
>   RFC 3369, and RFC 3852.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5652 (draft-ietf-smime-rfc3852bis-00)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
> Publication Date    : September 2009
> Author(s)           : R. Housley
> Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
> Source              : S/MIME Mail Security
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>