Errata Search
RFC Number:		Errata ID:
Source of RFC		Status:	All/Any Verified+Reported Verified Reported Held for Document Update Rejected
Area Acronym:	All/Any app art gen int ops rai rtg sec tsv wit	Type:	All/Any Editorial Technical
WG Acronym:		Submitter Name:
Other:	All/Any IAB INDEPENDENT IRTF Legacy Editorial	Date Submitted:
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5915, "Elliptic Curve Private Key Structure", June 2010

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: sec
See Also: RFC 5915 w/ inline errata

---

Errata ID: 2698
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sean Turner
Date Reported: 2011-01-31
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2011-11-12

Section 4 says:

PEM encoding the DER-encoded ECPrivateKey is
common; "Proc-Type:" and "DEK-INFO:" fields [RFC1421] followed by the
DER-encoded ECPrivateKey are sandwiched between:

It should say:

PEM encoding the DER-encoded ECPrivateKey is
common; "Proc-Type:" and "DEK-Info:" fields [RFC1421] (each on a new line),
followed by a blank line, and then followed by the Base64 encoding (see
Section 4 of [RFC4648]) of the DER-encoded ECPrivateKey are sandwiched
between:

Notes:

Needed to indicate that the Proc-Type and DEK-Info are on separate lines and that there is a blank line between the DEK-Info and the ECPrivateKey. Also it's not clear that the ECPrivateKey structure is PEM encoded during this process - it is. And finally, "DEK-INFO" should really have been "DEK-Info". This aligns with current industry practice.

Report New Errata