IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9399 (7536)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 05 June 2023 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 E4083C152F25 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 gPy1cYTEf8Dd for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 D6A42C152F23 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B56B1424F7; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE6AC142B48; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230605173622.679167FDDA@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 13:52:04 -0400
Cc: preston@letsencrypt.org, Stefan Santesson <sts@aaa-sec.com>, Trevor Freeman <frtrevor@amazon.com>, lrosenth@adobe.com, LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F3127E49-889E-490D-AC28-4482C50E010E@vigilsec.com>
References: <20230605173622.679167FDDA@rfcpa.amsl.com>
To: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/lEajamYtDuLy6rDMD72pskU_UE8>
Subject: Re: [lamps] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9399 (7536)
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 17:52:10 -0000

This is correct. 

There are three places where RFC 9399 says "replying" when it ought to say "relying".

It is a typo.  It is editorial.  I have no problem seeing it marked as verified.

Russ


> On Jun 5, 2023, at 1:36 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted 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/eid7536
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Preston Locke <preston@letsencrypt.org>
> 
> Section: 6
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   Care is needed when designing replying party software to ensure that
>   an appropriate context of logotype information is provided.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   Care is needed when designing relying party software to ensure that
>   an appropriate context of logotype information is provided.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The phrase "replying party" is a typo and should be "relying party"
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 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
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email