Carsten, Thanks for noting the missing backslashes within the email; the issue has been noted for the developer.
Looks like the errata report on the web is accurate (backslashes are intact): https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7336 Please let us know if you disagree. Thanks, Alice > On Feb 6, 2023, at 3:45 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is hilarious — the errata reporting form apparently ate my double > backslashes. > > Here is the corrected Corrected Text: > > oid = text .regexp "([0-2])((\\.0)|(\\.[1-9][0-9]*))*” > > And here is how I would write this, having been bitten by backslashes in RFCs > before: > > oid = text .regexp "([0-2])(([.]0)|([.][1-9][0-9]*))*” > > (Actually, I would write this: > > oid = text .regexp "[0-2]([.](0|([1-9][0-9]*)))*” > > …but this is a style issue.) > > Grüße, Carsten > > >> On 2023-02-07, at 00:35, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9115, >> "An Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Profile for >> Generating Delegated Certificates". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7336 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> >> >> Section: Appendix A >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> oid = text .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*" >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> oid = text .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*" >> >> >> Notes >> ----- >> Backslashes need to be doubled in CDDL strings (as they are done in Appendix >> B). >> >> An alternative fix would be to replace \. by [.] >> >> Note that the equivalent fix is not required for >> >> regtext = text .regexp "([^\*].*)|([\*][^\*].*)|([\*][\*].+)" >> >> as the fact that the single backslashes have no effect is irrelevant here — >> the backslashes are not needed in the character classes [...]. >> As an editorial enhancement, the backslashes could be entirely removed from >> this line. >> >> 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. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9115 (draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-09) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : An Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) >> Profile for Generating Delegated Certificates >> Publication Date : September 2021 >> Author(s) : Y. Sheffer, D. López, A. Pastor Perales, T. Fossati >> 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
