Hi Warren, all, I (co-author) agree that this was an oversight. I have no objections to the change.
However.. I haven't checked, but beware that current implementations might fail to parse the file if a "comment" member is added here, if they are (overly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this member. Perhaps it's wise that this is verified before finalising the errata. Tim > On 21 Aug 2022, at 17:57, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear SIDROPS, at al, > > I believe that this Errata is correct, and I intends to mark it Verified > unless I hear a clear objection by this Friday (August 26th). > > W > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:25 PM, Ben Maddison > <[email protected]> wrote: > Adding sidrops@ > > On 08/10, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8416, > "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7080 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Ben Maddison <[email protected]> > > Section: 3.4.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, as an > array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each of all of > the following members: > > o An "asn" member, whose value is a number. > > o An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' > (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as > described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET > STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) > > o A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without > trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the > subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as > described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the > subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the > subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, as an > array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each of all of > the following members: > > o An "asn" member, whose value is a number. > > o An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' > (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as > described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET > STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) > > o A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without > trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the > subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as > described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the > subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the > subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE. > > In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose > value is a string. > > Notes > ----- > The "comment" member is allowed to appear in every other structure defined by > the document, and was clearly intended to be allowed here too, since it > appears in the examples presented in sections 3.4.2 and 3.5 > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use > "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a > decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and > edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8416 (draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-08) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI > (SLURM) Publication Date : August 2018 > Author(s) : D. Ma, D. Mandelberg, T. Bruijnzeels Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
