Authors, should this be marked Verified? Thanks,
Ben On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:18:53AM -0800, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5983 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Jason Baker <[email protected]> > > Section: 9.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > A file of this type contains one or more certificates encoded with > the PEM textual encoding, according to [RFC7468]. The textual > encoding of certificates in this file MUST use the strict encoding > and MUST NOT include explanatory text. The ABNF for this format is > as follows, where "stricttextualmsg" and "eol" are as defined in > Section 3 of RFC 7468: > > certchain = stricttextualmsg *(eol stricttextualmsg) > > Corrected Text > -------------- > A file of this type contains one or more certificates encoded with > the PEM textual encoding, according to [RFC7468]. The textual > encoding of certificates in this file MUST use the strict encoding > and MUST NOT include explanatory text. The ABNF for this format is > as follows, where "stricttextualmsg" is as defined in > Section 3 of RFC 7468: > > certchain = stricttextualmsg *(stricttextualmsg) > > Notes > ----- > Examples within RFC 8555 indicate that only one EOL should be present between > entries in the PEM chain. > > RFC 7468 already defines a stricttextualmsg as ending with EOL > stricttextualmsg = preeb eol > strictbase64text > posteb eol > > If a second EOL is to be added before each strict textual message this would > result in a blank line between entries. The prior example in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.4.2 indicates an intention for > only one EOL marker to be used: > -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- > [End-entity certificate contents] > -----END CERTIFICATE----- > -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- > [Issuer certificate contents] > -----END CERTIFICATE----- > -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- > [Other certificate contents] > -----END CERTIFICATE----- > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) > Publication Date : March 2019 > Author(s) : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Automated Certificate Management Environment > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
