[lamps] [Errata Verified] RFC9399 (7534)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 05 June 2023 21:02 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A935AC14CE44; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 14:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 X5rlppXgjCJG; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 14:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (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 C44BEC14CE2E; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 14:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 65FA77FDDA; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 14:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: preston@letsencrypt.org, sts@aaa-sec.com, housley@vigilsec.com, frtrevor@amazon.com, lrosenth@adobe.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, iana@iana.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230605210255.65FA77FDDA@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 14:02:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Rybus0BFhA4wfx99zC5ysaTAQGA>
Subject: [lamps] [Errata Verified] RFC9399 (7534)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 21:02:59 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9399, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Logotypes in X.509 Certificates". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7534 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Preston Locke <preston@letsencrypt.org> Date Reported: 2023-06-05 Verified by: RFC Editor Section: 6 Original Text ------------- After a certification path is successfully validated, the replying party trusts the information that the CA includes in the certificate, including any certificate extensions. Corrected Text -------------- After a certification path is successfully validated, the relying party trusts the information that the CA includes in the certificate, including any certificate extensions. Notes ----- The phrase "replying party" is a typo and should be "relying party" -------------------------------------- RFC9399 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Logotypes in X.509 Certificates Publication Date : May 2023 Author(s) : S. Santesson, R. Housley, T. Freeman, L. Rosenthol Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME Area : Security Stream : IETF
- [lamps] [Errata Verified] RFC9399 (7534) RFC Errata System