Hi Josh,
AD for the successor group here (and hence one of the two ADs
jointly responsible for processing this errata).
1. I don't actually think that the responses to you have been offensive.
2. I agree that "encryp" is an odd abbreviation, but then so is "pref",
which
I think you'll agree is an abbreviation, not a typo. So, I don't think this
is
a clear error, and the argument Russ offers that it isn't seems persuasive.
3. As Jim says, this has no impact on the protocol, and the specific
change you are suggesting would actually break the ASN.1 module.
No doubt we could use a comment, but given the opinions expressed
here, I don't believe that that's necessary.
Finally, I would note that even if I agreed with you that this in fact was
an error, the correct processing would be "hold for document update",
as indicated in point 5 of the processing guidelines
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html
-Ekr
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Josh Soref <jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ok. Let's say that I'm new to IETF process. The feedback provided so far
is offensive.
Please suggest the proper way to annotate that there is an error in a
number of the documents hosted by IETF.
Clearly someone successfully ridiculed IETF once such that future
standards appropriately included "[sic]" wherever "referer" is used. It
shouldn't be hard to suggest to a submitter the correct way to do that
today, decades later.
On May 14, 2017 4:35 PM, "Jim Schaad" <ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com>
wrote:
The name chosen has absolutely no change of what is one the wire. That
means that this is at best editorial and is definitely not technical.
This is only going to affect those people who decide to use autogenerated
constant names from the ASN.1 file. The suggested change would make for an
invalid ASN.1 file so it not correct. Changing this name at this point
would be a hassle for any one doing auto generation and highlighting that
this is not, in some sense, a word does not affect the standard in any way.
This should be rejected.
Jim
*From:* smime [mailto:smime-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf Of *Russ
Housley
*Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2017 10:55 AM
*To:* Josh Soref <jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
*Cc:* Kathleen Moriarty
<Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>; Eric Rescorla
<ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com>; IETF SMIME <
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
*Subject:* Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2633 (5019)
It is the name that the author chose to use in the ASN.1. If it was a
typo, then it would have been changed in the subsequent update to the RFC.
Russ
On May 14, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Josh Soref <jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
It isn't an abbreviation, other tokens are clearly longer such as
signingCertificate and smimeEncryptCerts. It's likely that the errata
applies to multiple RFCs.
On May 14, 2017 1:15 PM, "Russ Housley" <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I believe that this errata should be rejected. The author used an
abbreviation, and the same spelling is used in RFC 3851.
Russ
On May 14, 2017, at 12:35 PM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org> wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2633,
"S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5019
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Josh Soref <jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Section: 5
Original Text
-------------
id-aa-encrypKeyPref OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}
Corrected Text
--------------
id-aa-encrypKeyPref [sic] OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}
Notes
-----
encryp isn't a word, it's a typo. Unfortunately, like http's (rfc1945)
referer [sic] before it, this is now part of the API.
This error should be highlighted (as rfc2068 does for referer [sic]) so
that people are aware that the natural spelling doesn't apply.
If it's possible for a revised RFC to be published suggesting the
correct spelling w/ a way for clients/servers to handle the old spelling,
that would be nice, but based on precedent, that seems unlikely.
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.
--------------------------------------
RFC2633 (draft-ietf-smime-msg-08)
--------------------------------------
Title : S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification
Publication Date : June 1999
Author(s) : B. Ramsdell, Ed.
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
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
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime