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

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:00:34 +0100

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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:24:21 -0400

On 7/29/12 1:00 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>>  >> while i agree that the change is correct, this is not an 
>>> erratum, but an
I agree with Stewart's suggestion.

Steve