At 9:35 AM -0700 6/4/12, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 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
No problem. I submitted this as an errata at Sean Turner's suggestion.
He found the bug in the RFC and brought it to the attention of Geoff and me.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
