Re: [smime] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC2633 (5019)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 0B1CB1242F5; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bX5dzmf4qB0; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x232.google.com (mail-ot0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9DA0127735; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l12-v6so17294122otj.7; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=caCXI2uf0bcOQXY/OnS2qwRWL83zAFTvBhKI3pnlEB0=; b=sSJbzzLRUKWtfewmdx41kNQ9yRdC4Sxjm828/j26e+Mrn+POQ8DAaamJI6US5cL8pT bwyRyMdmzZrKFSChtWDN8toEF0wBQrE59j5n9rekV0JmOhNPauV/Fdte3vMcPn/Ui9+h E4QO7MagzsLQt0kgKvFJZHzAV5cKs+anShxvYRuL0EyAUHx8ngP+GCnQl3nUn/FPmm93 ayTmD9f3Gd8+ghYHWTSMHmxDQDsP/yogoSAcV3+rIptTy3hOJBOwAYXR4Q5iJaJMo8Uk rLAUfmBAVlRpvj1G1dSsfSICxW2t4Ih5DKVToOaekO8S1Gm6TUjlwbswwcm+W+hLX+16 Vg0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=caCXI2uf0bcOQXY/OnS2qwRWL83zAFTvBhKI3pnlEB0=; b=MyrCznIr1DToR+0Qt971vC60LQK5SYVSAXnao4aIYkp/QiySotr2uND+7KjHytUmhc cWfZCOh1vBWr+hGxdMh7R1BLpdOam3Gkw57aOeg6XmcjWU9bP61T0Kr3OGZJI1WMCO42 JLQnFFFCT/MehNzn0UAFcmFIZJb1OeLK8wGTx+1lY/sOxN1UQvbBYk9zcCAkCne9VTCh VSW03AyRFKZ78k1XpBRNDIqnwbrU7r49eBQkSS5f/HbGKz23RvjViamV8UnrOwa60Avb 89DAP33Xy5P7TnCB+PtNB0WSeLtugq5U1i8uANWgMnxIqOJF1wK8x57L5JfkwZjeZbYQ mBkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7ExM7Rdw0hqG1ZPHdN5w8SC3kTnMxicHCA01lohJPvujIWzb65V e0LQFkCbzWpYa1bcRnzZMBDSLCjx42HarGz0gzI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt7aC+zgLAOIJ5VsODVBGkrVd76+CMsUmeJTNt4Tt8oyolk2hX6aGRunYs6rus8ng5DRHfvWsQpoWewy5n6qgE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5a09:: with SMTP id v9-v6mr8160991oth.380.1521465548041; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a9d:233c:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180319105228.038E4B81B74@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180319105228.038E4B81B74@rfc-editor.org>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:19:07 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WjXHYu9dd6ldr8LEPsMr1oFwMkk
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwip-1tvae6=fQCTwHqvFm=GL1LB11wnPx6YF4B=0c-2=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jsoref@gmail.com, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, iesg@ietf.org, IETF SMIME <smime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008773fa0567c3cd4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smime/DL_1nLVe0Dt9kVITwL57fvMIou8>
Subject: Re: [smime] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC2633 (5019)
X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:19:13 -0000

I agree it would be useful to highlight. But this is an ASN.1 code fragment
and I am not sure it will parse with the comment there.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:52 AM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:

> The following errata report has been held for document update
> for RFC2633, "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5019
>
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Held for Document Update
> Type: Editorial
>
> Reported by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com>;
> Date Reported: 2017-05-14
> Held by: Kathleen Moriarty (IESG)
>
> Section: 5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> id-aa-encrypKeyPref OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> id-aa-encrypKeyPref [sic] OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}
>
> Notes
> -----
> encryp isn't a word, it's a typo. Unfortunately, like http's (rfc1945)
> referer [sic] before it, this is now part of the API.
>
> This error should be highlighted (as rfc2068 does for referer [sic]) so
> that people are aware that the natural spelling doesn't apply.
>
> If it's possible for a revised RFC to be published suggesting the correct
> spelling w/ a way for clients/servers to handle the old spelling, that
> would be nice, but based on precedent, that seems unlikely.
>
> ---
> As AD, this discussion needs to be continued and possibly with a different
> draft.  As such, I am marking this as hold for document update and listing
> it as editorial so that there are no n the wire changes at this time with
> this errata.
> ----
> There was quite a bit of on list discussion that should be reviewed for
> any future changes.
>
> One summary from the discussion:
> he mailing list participants are copied on these errata to get their
> opinion in order to inform the AD how to dispose of the errata.  Most folks
> are just making their opinions known.
>
> 1) The next thing that folks look at is whether it’s technical or not.
> Debate ensues, but generally technical errata are those that affect
> interoperability.  This one I don’t think does because there are no changes
> to the bits on the wire.
>
> 2) And, well folks want to get lots of changes, but the change has to run
> through the consensus process (back to mailing list input).
>
> So to the import bit:
>
> As I see it, there are two ways to get the note incorporated:
>
> 1. Write a draft that adds the note; this seems a bit heavy weight for
> what you are trying to do.
>
> 2. Apply the note to the latest RFC/draft that obsoletes RFC 2633; I guess
> you went for upstream, but generally the IETF applies changes to the
> latest/greatest RFC/draft.  That obsoletes chain is: RFC 3851 obsoleted RFC
> 2633, RFC 3851 was obsoleted by RFC 5751, and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis
> is about to obsolete RFC 5751.  Luckily, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis isn’t
> yet an RFC so there’s an option to have the note added there.
>
> Any objections to adding a note in draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis along the
> same lines as the note for receipentKeyId?
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC2633 (draft-ietf-smime-msg-08)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification
> Publication Date    : June 1999
> Author(s)           : B. Ramsdell, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : S/MIME Mail Security
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> smime mailing list
> smime@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime
>