On 7/29/12 1:00 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 04/06/2012 20:37, Stephen Kent wrote:
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
The "right thing to do" seems to be to confirm this as a technical
errata so that
implementers are aware of the issue.
Does anyone disagree?
Stewart
I agree with Stewart's suggestion.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
