That works for me > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 5:59 AM > To: John Bradley <[email protected]> > Cc: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc- > editor.org>; Michael Jones <[email protected]>; Nat Sakimura <n- > [email protected]>; Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>; Karen > Odonoghue <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (4554) > > 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
