Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5752 (2027)

Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Fri, 29 January 2010 21:14 UTC

Message-ID: <4B634FE5.9040203@ieca.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:15:17 -0500
From: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20100129205123.15FC1E06B0@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100129205123.15FC1E06B0@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de, smime@ietf.org, pasi.eronen@nokia.com, jimsch@exmsft.com
Subject: Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5752 (2027)
Precedence: list

The proposed correction is appropriate. I have no objection to this errata.

spt

RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5752,
> "Multiple Signatures in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5752&eid=2027
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
> 
> Section: 5, pg. 8
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    This section describes recommended processing of signatures when
> |  there are more than one SignerInfo present in a message.  This may be
>    due to either multiple SignerInfo objects being present in a single
> |  SignedData object or multiple SignerData objects embedded in each
>    other.
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    Order of operations:
> 
>    1) Evaluate each SignerInfo object independently.
> 
>    2) Combine the results of all SignerInfo objects at the same level
> |     (i.e., attached to the same SignerData object).
> 
> |  3) Combine the results of the nested SignerData objects.  Note that
>       this should ignore the presence of other CMS objects between the
>       SignedData objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    This section describes recommended processing of signatures when
> |  there is more than one SignerInfo object present in a message.  This
>    may be due to either multiple SignerInfo objects being present in a
> |  single SignedData object or multiple SignedData objects embedded in
>    each other.
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    Order of operations:
> 
>    1) Evaluate each SignerInfo object independently.
> 
>    2) Combine the results of all SignerInfo objects at the same level
> |     (i.e., attached to the same SignedData object).
> 
> |  3) Combine the results of the nested SignedData objects.  Note that
>       this should ignore the presence of other CMS objects between the
>       SignedData objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Rationale:
>   There's no such ASN.1 type/object "SignerData".
>   Based on the importance of referencing the correct type/object,
>   the correction to "SignedData" is classified as 'Technical'.
>   Also a clarification and fix is applied in the first sentence.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5752 (draft-ietf-smime-multisig-05)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Multiple Signatures in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
> Publication Date    : January 2010
> Author(s)           : S. Turner, J. Schaad
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : S/MIME Mail Security
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

[smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5752 (2027) RFC Errata System
Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5752 (… Sean Turner