Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5652 (7863)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 21 March 2024 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFABAC14F6F0 for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vigilsec.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxp87vsDh8Cl for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1899EC14F6E2 for <smime@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035DE101DE3; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2233F101DE2; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240321153018.4712011FCE6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:40:53 -0400
Cc: heas@shrubbery.nbet
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <361913F9-203B-499F-BEB6-5F30C35C91B5@vigilsec.com>
References: <20240321153018.4712011FCE6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
To: IETF SMIME <smime@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=pair-202402141609; bh=qk09A6F9PsvWUZ+5e4fBKwnTIKVe0T8FWsIXutbKFNQ=; b=i+pc23PtJZWgao3nULPfbeWs8il8/j9eDuH9CeHJskGkGRzlInIM3vWAko1QTIWkdt5qrggH8+0IgGbJkM40CNoz0waAiNdGBOWYnPL14qt8wb3o1480g+WN/xx2bftwhBEvVCq7d6AeLJnTEnLxqshbZTD2sXv5REZS3qqdzMir1BiTkvsgx4Pz2oAQhtbgS1nwbKWtDKXzNBu5UvsawUDioAc17teIO4x0i8tYVTVcm6U7cdj3OikS54+coI28w4tbsSw4LmJrZXDBlwNACCEQM3SA50yX6AgzrtixNB51MmuIui3dufRFpDWhLdtB41R5dHJFb7q+zsFUTb08zg==
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smime/9_W9GSdWM2mK6Ea7y_Q0WeXO6yo>
Subject: Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5652 (7863)
X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMIME Working Group <smime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/smime/>
List-Post: <mailto:smime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:41:16 -0000

This sentence is related the the first sentence in Section 5.2, which says: "The content is represented in the type EncapsulatedContentInfo ...."

I thing the current wording or the revised wording are both fine.

Russ


> On Mar 21, 2024, at 11:30 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5652,
> "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7863
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: heasley <heas@shrubbery.nbet>
> 
> Section: 5.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> "... and the content
>   field of the EncapsulatedContentInfo value MUST be omitted."
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> "... and the eContent
>   field of the EncapsulatedContentInfo value MUST be omitted."
> 
> Notes
> -----
> No 'content' field exists and I do not think this is referring to another structure.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> will 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
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG