[lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8659 (7139)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 23 September 2022 19:46 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 7D854C152588 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 CRIOTxlynkwY for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:46:05 -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 EE4C5C15256A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 74B5B31761; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com, phill@hallambaker.com, rob@sectigo.com, jsha@letsencrypt.org, spasm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220923194605.74B5B31761@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:46:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/SDn7DzkKp5LnyBM3JaNNQGPaB0Q>
Subject: [lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8659 (7139)
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:46:10 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8659, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7139 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Section: 4.2 Original Text ------------- parameters = (parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters) / parameter parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT)) value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E) Corrected Text -------------- parameters = (parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters) / parameter parameter = parameter-tag *WSP "=" *WSP parameter-value parameter-tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT)) parameter-value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E) Notes ----- 1. Original text uses "tag" and "value" in the ABNF is ambiguous or conflicting with the usage of "tag" and "value" in terms "Property Tag" and "Property Value" (which are in the main CAA context). 2. The text for "tag" (meaning Property Tag) in 4.1.1 reads: Tag: A non-zero-length sequence of ASCII letters and numbers in lowercase. 3. The Tag definition above does not have an ABNF definition. This can (and does) lead to confusion for implementers. The above change to the ABNF removes the ambiguity, without changing the meaning of the ABNF itself. Instructions: ------------- This erratum 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 can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8659 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-07) -------------------------------------- Title : DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record Publication Date : November 2019 Author(s) : P. Hallam-Baker, R. Stradling, J. Hoffman-Andrews Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8659 (7139) RFC Errata System
- Re: [lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8659 (… Chris Smiley
- [lamps] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8659 (… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews