I did not intend to be offensive, and I apologize if you have found it so.
I thought that I offered two reasons why the current suggested errata was
incorrect. If they were both fixed, then I do not know what my position on
this suggestion would be.
I am unclear if the use of sic as presented in the errata is correct or not. I
would need to ask the RFC editor on that point, but if this was editorial and
held for update then that is not of any immediate importance. My general
understanding is that “sic” is used, not in original source material, but in
quotes to say that I did a faithful transcription of what was in the original
document and the spelling (or other) errors are theirs and not mine. That
would be a question for others and not for me. This could be a correct usage
that I am unaware of.
Going back and looking at RC 2616, it is clear that this is a technical issue
in that document. The string “Referer” appears as bits transported on the wire
and needs to be spelt as it is in the document rather than having the spelling
corrected. If the correct spelling is used, there would be an interoperability
issue. This makes the usage of “sic” correct in this location and it would
have been a technical errata if it was raised.
The use of the errata mechanism is an appropriate method for raising these
types of issues, however it must be recognized that we do not all have the same
level of significance when it comes to technical vs editorial. Some people are
more strict in terms of how significant an errata issue affects the document
and consider anything which, even if it might lead to difference of opinion on
implementation, to be editorial. I think however, that this suggestion was
clearly editorial in nature as it would not cause confusion in how things are
to be implemented or change bits on the wire if one were to change the string
in the ASN.1 file.
Jim
From: Josh Soref [mailto:jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 1:43 PM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>; IETF SMIME
<smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Eric Rescorla <ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com>; Russ
Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>; Kathleen Moriarty
<Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: RE: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2633 (5019)
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
<mailto: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
<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
<mailto:jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> >
Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:Kathleen(_dot_)Moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> >; Paul
Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org
<mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> >; Eric Rescorla
<ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com <mailto:ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com> >; IETF SMIME
<smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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