Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) wrote:
> Was there any conclusion of what to do here, which I think applies to
> errata 6648: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6648
> I don't think that this is an errata that can be verified, hence I'm
> questioning whether "Held for
RFC Errata System wrote:
> --
> Status: Verified
> Type: Editorial
...
> Notes
> -
> David von Oheimb discovered [1] that section 6.2.2 is self-referential
and incorrect regarding the section reference to the ASN.1 module.
>
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Okay, I can add a clarification to the errata to indicate that RFC 2119
> language is not required for the text to still be normative, and if
> this text is updated, the other sections should be updated in a
> consistent fashion.
If you like.
I
re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7263
I agree that the correct text is:
idevid-issuer: The Issuer value from the pledge IDevID certificate
MUST BE included to ensure unique interpretation of the serial-
number.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
