I agree it would be useful to highlight. But this is an ASN.1 code fragment
and I am not sure it will parse with the comment there.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:52 AM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org> wrote:
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC2633, "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5019
--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Josh Soref <jsoref(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date Reported: 2017-05-14
Held by: Kathleen Moriarty (IESG)
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.
---
As AD, this discussion needs to be continued and possibly with a different
draft. As such, I am marking this as hold for document update and listing
it as editorial so that there are no n the wire changes at this time with
this errata.
----
There was quite a bit of on list discussion that should be reviewed for
any future changes.
One summary from the discussion:
he mailing list participants are copied on these errata to get their
opinion in order to inform the AD how to dispose of the errata. Most folks
are just making their opinions known.
1) The next thing that folks look at is whether it’s technical or not.
Debate ensues, but generally technical errata are those that affect
interoperability. This one I don’t think does because there are no changes
to the bits on the wire.
2) And, well folks want to get lots of changes, but the change has to run
through the consensus process (back to mailing list input).
So to the import bit:
As I see it, there are two ways to get the note incorporated:
1. Write a draft that adds the note; this seems a bit heavy weight for
what you are trying to do.
2. Apply the note to the latest RFC/draft that obsoletes RFC 2633; I guess
you went for upstream, but generally the IETF applies changes to the
latest/greatest RFC/draft. That obsoletes chain is: RFC 3851 obsoleted RFC
2633, RFC 3851 was obsoleted by RFC 5751, and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis
is about to obsolete RFC 5751. Luckily, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis isn’t
yet an RFC so there’s an option to have the note added there.
Any objections to adding a note in draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis along the
same lines as the note for receipentKeyId?
--------------------------------------
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