I agree. This erratum should be verified. > On Feb 23, 2024, at 18:48, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8520, > "Manufacturer Usage Description Specification". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7819 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> > > Section: 13.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > Note: A MUD file may need to be re-signed if the signature expires. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Note: A MUD file may need to be re-signed if the certificate needed > to validate the signature expires. > > Notes > ----- > The signature does not expire, but the certificate does. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8520 (draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-25) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Manufacturer Usage Description Specification > Publication Date : March 2019 > Author(s) : E. Lear, R. Droms, D. Romascanu > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Operations and Management Area Working Group > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
