Re: [lamps] Follow-up on draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 22, 2022, at 10:46 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 9, 2022, at 12:24, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications got a few COMMENTS during IESG review.  I wanted to check-in on Paul's COMMENT about errata on RFC8410.
>> 
>> ** This document acknowledges and resolves https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5696.  Thanks.
>> 
>> ** These errata were previously flagged as hold for document update, and this is an update.  What do we want to do?
> 
> I did not include the following in this update because they were not specifically about the topic I was interested in addressing.
> 
> They could be incorporated into -ku-clarifications, but then we start to go down the slope of -cmp-update where -ku-clarifications is about more than just ku clarifications. And, we end up doing a bis. Is that the ask here - respin as a bis?
> 
>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5459
>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5707
>> 
>> ** There are also the following reported errata against RFC8410.  What do we want to do with them?
> 
> The following are reference-related or example related so I tend to lean HFDU.
> 
>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6229
> 
> 6229 should be verified or HFDU: I agree with reasoning laid out in the errata.
> 
>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6263
> 
> 6263 should be verified or HFDU: OneAsymmetricKey is in RFC 5958.
> 
>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6936
> 
> 6936 should be verified or HFDU: If you are going to include BasisConstraints in an EE certificate it’s an empty SEQUENCE (or so I have seen).

Given the IESG reaction to cmp-update, it seems that addressing these would need to result in a bis document.  That said, these do not look difficult to address.

Russ