I will be honest. I would be happier with an update of this document rather
than just having the errata.
I would be happy to look at this in a couple of days and see if I can make
the text clearer than it currently is. I find the text that does the same
thing in RFC5480 to be hard to decipher but the easiest thing might still
just be to point to that document for how to do this.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 2:47 PM
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org>
Cc: turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com; dbrown(_at_)certicom(_dot_)com;
stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie;
Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
blaker(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com; smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5753 (4777)
Please do not accept this errata until further discussion.
Discussion:
1) I believe that the errata would be *much* clearer if the errata was
only for
the changed sentences, not the whole paragraph. Thus, I think the
"Original
Text" should start with "The originatorKey publicKey field MUST". If
others
agree, the submitter could turn in a new errata.
2) The submitter says "This error is also present in sections 3.1.2,
3.1.3, 3.2.1,
3.2.2, 7.2". That feels like it *might* be sufficient for the reader to
understand,
but it would be clearer if the errata included the change for each of
those
sections. If others agree, the submitter could turn in a new errata.
--Paul Hoffman
On 13 Aug 2016, at 14:34, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5753, "Use of
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Algorithms in Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS)".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5753&eid=4777
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jim Schaad <ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com>
Section: 3.1.1
Original Text
-------------
- originator MUST be the alternative originatorKey. The
originatorKey algorithm field MUST contain the id-ecPublicKey
object identifier (see Section 7.1.2). The parameters
associated
with id-ecPublicKey MUST be absent, ECParameters, or NULL. The
parameters associated with id-ecPublicKey SHOULD be absent or
ECParameters, and NULL is allowed to support legacy
implementations. The previous version of this document required
NULL to be present. If the parameters are ECParameters, then
they
MUST be namedCurve. The originatorKey publicKey field MUST
contain the DER encoding of the value of the ASN.1 type ECPoint
(see Section 7.2), which represents the sending agent's
ephemeral
EC public key. The ECPoint in uncompressed form MUST be
supported.
Corrected Text
--------------
- originator MUST be the alternative originatorKey. The
originatorKey algorithm field MUST contain the id-ecPublicKey
object identifier (see Section 7.1.2). The parameters
associated
with id-ecPublicKey MUST be absent, ECParameters, or NULL. The
parameters associated with id-ecPublicKey SHOULD be absent or
ECParameters, and NULL is allowed to support legacy
implementations. The previous version of this document required
NULL to be present. If the parameters are ECParameters, then
they
MUST be namedCurve. The originatorKey publicKey field MUST
contain the encoded public key as defined in [X9.62]. The
hybred
form MUST NOT be used. The ECPoint in uncompressed form MUST be
supported. This mirrors the same format used in public key
certificates as defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC5480].
Notes
-----
There is a problem in that for ECPoints, the public key is defined to
be encoded differently in this document than it is in a public key
certificate. The difference is the presence of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING
wrapper.
OpenSSL and BouncyCastle both use the unwrapped version per Dr.
Stephen Henson note to me in mail.
This error is also present in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 7.2
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 (IESG) can log in to
change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC5753 (draft-ietf-smime-3278bis-09)
--------------------------------------
Title : Use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)
Algorithms in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Publication Date : January 2010
Author(s) : S. Turner, D. Brown
Category : INFORMATIONAL
Source : S/MIME Mail Security
Area : Security
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime