Subject: Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6487 (3238)

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:52:46 -0400

At 7:55 AM +0900 6/1/12, Randy Bush wrote:
>  >...
>
>while i agree that the change is correct, this is not an erratum, but an
>actual change in semantics.
>
>randy

yeah, sort of.

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.

Steve

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:35:39 -0700

> 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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:37:14 -0400

>need to be careful what we call errata.

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