Subject: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 17:36:26 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): transfer encodings and ASN.1
        Authors         : Michael Richardson
                          Thomas Werner
                          Wei Pan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2020-03-05

Abstract:
   This document updates RFC7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
   to resolve some errata that was reported, and which has proven to
   have interoperability when RFC7030 has been extended.

   This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-
   Encoding" headers for EST endpoints, providing a way to do this in an
   upward compatible way.  This document fixes some syntactical errors
   in ASN.1 that was presented.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:49:40 -0500

see below for a longer discussion

    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02

A useful diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-00&url2=draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02

I goofed some markdown on -01, and obliterated the IANA Considerations header.

This version fills in the text for the errata-5108, literally taking what was
suggested, as I don't think that there really any discussion.

There are now two more errata filed since we started this process:
a)    https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5904

      is dealt with in this update, as it's about Content-Transfer-Encoding.
Is Justin Crawford on this list?  How can I reach out to this person?
Neither of his options fits what industry has actually implemented, which is
base64 encoded objects, without a Content-Transfer-Encoding.

b) https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5926

asks to have the Examples updates.  I think that we could do that in this
document.  I would prefer to take examples from deployed products, and I've
CC'ed some people who could probably generate that.

c) https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5779

points out the extra <sp> before ";", which should be tolerated, but not
required.  This could updated with (b) above, I think.

If the WG would like to let the authors know if we should do (b) and (c).
I believe that (a) requires no action other than marking the errata as
duplicated, or fixed in this document.

Should reference to errata be informative or normative?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:43:00 -0400

Michael:

RFC 8713 references errata in the Informational References section.

Russ

> On Mar 5, 2020, at 8:49 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 16:34:06 -0400

> RFC 8713 references errata in the Informational References section.

Thank you, that's what I've done.

    >> CC'ed some people who could probably generate that.

I propose to mark these errata as being dealt with by this update as well by
adding examples.

    >> required.  This could updated with (b) above, I think.

We could repeat the example and fix it.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:57:48 -0400

I have asked Justin Cranford at entrustdatacard for comments on
the document.  The email with the summary from March 6 is at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/-frEPin8InEzEv2CQgPqtYbj-qw/

There are a few questions in that email.
The "big" question was:

    >> asks to have the Examples updates.

    >> required.  This could updated with (b) above, I think.

We could repeat the example and fix it in the Update.
If that suits the WG, I will copy and paste, fixing the space.