errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC5903, "Elliptic Curve Groups modulo a Prime (ECP Groups) for IKE and IKEv2", June 2010

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: sec

Errata ID: 2308

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-06-22
Rejected by: Sean Turner
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Section 3.1 - 3.3 says:

a) in Section 3.1:

   Field Size:
    256

b) in Section 3.2:

   Field Size:
    384

c) in Section 3.3:

   Field Size:
    521

It should say:

a)

   Field bit width:
    256

b)

   Field bit width:
    384

c)

   Field bit width:
    521   

Notes:

Rationale:

The "size" of a finite field is the number of elements of the field,
according to century-old well-established mathematical terminology.
In the case of Sections 3.1 through 3.3, the field width is the prime
number p given 3 lines above the given snippets.
The idea is to give the number of bits needed to represent the field
elements (integers modulo p), which serve as the x and y coordinates
of the Elliptic Curve group points -- hence this should be denoted as
the bit width of the field (elements), which equals ceil(lb(p)).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
I just can't see keeping this as-is is going to cause any issues for implementers.


Errata ID: 2309

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-06-22
Rejected by: Sean Turner
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Section 10.2 says:

   [Err9]         RFC Errata, Errata ID 9, RFC 4753,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

It should say:

   [Err9]         RFC Errata, Errata ID 9, RFC 4753; see
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4753>.

Notes:

Rationale:
A less experienced reader will likely have difficulties locating
the Errata entry given only the RFC Editor home page URL.
The RFC 'info' URIs have been introduced by RFC 5741 to provide
stable canonical URIs for all information related to a given RFC;
thus, the proper stable URI should be provided in the reference entry.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The reference entry for Errata ID 9 is similar to how errata were referenced in previous RFCs (5550 and 5724). The URL of the main RFC Editor page was used intentionally, rather than the URL of the specific Errata ID or the RFC's info page (as in Alfred's corrected text).


Report New Errata