I was going to go with a disposition of Verified as I believe the RFC was always intenting to refer to the full OID 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.40.
One question to the authors of rfc8366bis. Can this change be incorporated before I send it for IESG Evaluation? Cheers. > On Jun 22, 2026, at 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8366, > "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols" > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9011/ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Russ Housley <[email protected]> > > Section 5.4 says: > > Original Text > ------------- > An eContentType of 40 indicates that the content is a JSON-encoded voucher. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > An eContentType of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.40 indicates that the content is a > JSON-encoded voucher. > > Notes > ----- > Provided the whole OID value, not just the last component. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8366 (draft-ietf-anima-voucher) > -------------------------------------- > Title : A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols > Publication Date : May 2018 > Author(s) : K. Watsen, M. Richardson, M. Pritikin, T. Eckert > Category : Proposed Standard > Source : anima (ops) > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
