errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC5480, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key Information", March 2009

Source of RFC: pkix (sec)

Errata ID: 1727

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Held for Document Update by: Pasi Eronen

Section 2.1.1, pg.5 says:

|     o specifiedCurve, which is of type SpecifiedECDomain type (defined
        in [X9.62]), allows all of the elliptic curve domain parameters
        to be explicitly specified.  [...]

It should say:

|     o specifiedCurve, which is of type SpecifiedECDomain (defined
        in [X9.62]), allows all of the elliptic curve domain parameters
        to be explicitly specified.  [...]

Notes:

Location: last bullet in Section 2.1.1.
Rationale: inadvertant replication of "type"


Errata ID: 1728

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Held for Document Update by: Pasi Eronen

Section 2.1.1.1 says:

   The namedCurve field in ECParameters uses object identifiers to name
   well-known curves.  This document publishes curve identifiers for the
   fifteen NIST-recommended curves [FIPS186-3].  Other documents can
|  publish other name curve identifiers.  The NIST-named curves are:

It should say:

   The namedCurve field in ECParameters uses object identifiers to name
   well-known curves.  This document publishes curve identifiers for the
   fifteen NIST-recommended curves [FIPS186-3].  Other documents can
|  publish other named curve identifiers.  The NIST named curves are:
                     ^                             ^

Notes:

Location: first paragraph of 2.1.1.1
Rationale:
a) typo: s/name curve/named curve/
b) extraneous hyphen (inserted in final publication processing)
changes semantics in an unfortunate manner; "NIST-named curves"
could be misunderstood as indicating that NIST had named these
'Named Curves'; "NIST-recommended named curves" might have been a
valid alternative but would have incurred too much word repetition.


Report New Errata