>> while i agree that the change is correct, this is not an erratum, but an >> actual change in semantics. > The text that was there could not be acted upon by a CA or an RP > requesting a cert. The cited field are in KU, not EKU, and were > already described in the immediately preceding paragraph. So, this > text, which is a MAY, just provides guidance (for a CA or RP re a cert > request) consistent with what is already described earlier in this > RFC.
i do not intend to have a tantrum or even make a fuss. i just think we need to be careful what we call errata. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
