errata logo graphic

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC6485, "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", February 2012

Source of RFC: sidr (rtg)

Errata ID: 4339

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Sandra Murphy
Date Reported: 2015-04-20
Verifier Name: Alvaro Retana
Date Verified: 2015-05-21

Section 2. says:

      In a certification request, the OID appears in the PKCS #10
      signatureAlgorithm field [RFC2986] or in the Certificate Request
      Message Format (CRMF) POPOSigningKey signature field [RFC4211].

It should say:

      In a certification request, the OID appears in the PKCS #10
      signatureAlgorithm field [RFC2986] or in the Certificate Request
      Message Format (CRMF) POPOSigningKey algorithmIdentifier field 
      [RFC4211].

Notes:

This is technically a technical change, as it would technically affect implementation, but I believe in fact it is just a typo. Only a very inexperienced implementor would put the RFC6485 algorithm OID in the signature field of the POPOSigningKey.

This problem was noted in a message to the sidr list https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg06587.html and supported by another message https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg06649.html

At noted in the message to the sidr list, RFC4211 says that the POPOSigningKey is:

POPOSigningKey ::= SEQUENCE {
poposkInput [0] POPOSigningKeyInput OPTIONAL,
algorithmIdentifier AlgorithmIdentifier,
signature BIT STRING }

The OID mentioned in the RFC6485 text is for the algorithm identifier and so should appear in the algorithmIdentifier field, not the signature field.


Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC6485, "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", February 2012

Source of RFC: sidr (rtg)

Errata ID: 3162

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Danny Rios
Date Reported: 2012-03-23
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant

Section 9 says:

9.  Normative References

It should say:

8.  Normative References

Notes:

Section 8 was incorrectly numbered as section 9 in final RFC. This was due to the draft including a section 7 for "IANA Considerations," which was later removed.


Errata ID: 4340

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Richard Hansen
Date Reported: 2015-04-20
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2015-05-21

Section 1 says:

                                           the SIDR Architecture
   [RFC6480],

It should say:

                                           the RPKI Architecture
   [RFC6480],

Notes:

Neither "SIDR" nor "Secure Inter-Domain Routing" is mentioned in RFC6480. RFC6480 is about the design of the RPKI, so "RPKI Architecture" seems like a more appropriate fit.


Report New Errata