+1 > On Dec 8, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your advice on this. > > How about I mark it as 'editorial' and hold for document update, then add a > note that says the normative section is correct and this is just an HTML > markup from txt issue? > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 8, 2015, at 8:47 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I agree, Rfcmarkup strikes again:) >> >> The canonical version is txt and that is correct. >> >> The link is probably correct in the XML version. >> One day we will publish RFC from the XML and can get rid of these stupid >> HTML markup from TXT issues. >> >> Worth keeping a note of if we do do an errata and can publish in XML. >> >> Until that time nothing to do for it. >> >> John B. >> >>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> My inclination is to say that this is not a valid Errata. The complaint is >>> really against the tools and not the document as the complaint is dealing >>> with the line, which is not part of the RFC, rather than with either >>> technical or editorial content of the document. >>> >>> I believe that the original text is sufficiently clear as to which section >>> is being referred to for a human. But it would not be clear to a tool. The >>> suggested change may or may not fix that for the tool and a better approach >>> is probably to start using the xml source for the generation of the html >>> page rather than to fix up the text version. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 7:17 AM >>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (4554) >>>> >>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7515, "JSON Web >>>> Signature (JWS)". >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7515&eid=4554 >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Type: Editorial >>>> Reported by: Simon <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Section: 2 >>>> >>>> Original Text >>>> ------------- >>>> Base64url Encoding >>>> Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set >>>> defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with all trailing >>> \\'=\\' >>>> characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2) and without the >>>> inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other additional >>>> characters. Note that the base64url encoding of the empty octet >>>> sequence is the empty string. (See Appendix C for notes on >>>> implementing base64url encoding without padding.) >>>> >>>> Corrected Text >>>> -------------- >>>> Base64url Encoding >>>> Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set >>>> defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with all trailing >>> \\'=\\' >>>> characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2 of RFC 4648) and >>>> without the inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other >>>> additional characters. Note that the base64url encoding of the >>>> empty octet sequence is the empty string. (See Appendix C for >>>> notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding.) >>>> >>>> Notes >>>> ----- >>>> in the html version https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515 the link on >>> \\"Section >>>> 3.2\\" goes to Section 3.2 of RFC7515 but it should go to Section 3.2 of >>>> RFC4648. Not sure how the automatic link generation is made (or is it >>> manual?), >>>> so i would propose explicitly saying \\"Section 3.2 of RFC 4648\\". >>>> >>>> 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and >>> edit the >>>> report, if necessary. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC7515 (draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-41) >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Title : JSON Web Signature (JWS) >>>> Publication Date : May 2015 >>>> Author(s) : M. Jones, J. Bradley, N. Sakimura >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>>> Source : Javascript Object Signing and Encryption >>>> Area : Security >>>> Stream : IETF >>>> Verifying Party : IESG >>
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
