RFC 4211, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", September 2005Source of RFC: pkix (sec)
Errata ID: 2339
Status: Held for Document Update
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-11-08
Held for Document Update by: Tim Polk
Date Held: 2010-07-20
Section B says:
Near the middle of page 32, contains the following [commented out] ASN.1, and ASN.1 comment: -- UTF8String ::= [UNIVERSAL 12] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING -- The contents of this type correspond to RFC 2279. ^^^^ The RFC should say: -- UTF8String ::= [UNIVERSAL 12] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING -- The contents of this type correspond to RFC 3629.
It should say:
RFC 2279 has been obsoleted by RFC 3629 == STD 63 "long" ago.
I am aware of the fact that the UTF-8 definition in RFC 3629
syntactically and semantically by intention is a proper subset
of the definition in RFC 2279 (restriction to possible Unicode
codepoints with up to 24-bit representation).
Thus, it might be true that the reference to RFC 2279 has been
used intentionally in this ASN.1 comment, e.g., because RFC 3280
[PROFILE] (pre-3629!) referred to RFC 2279 in that context.
But, regarding the STD status of RFC 3629, a standards track RFC
like RFC 4211 should, in this case, present explicit arguments
for the deviation from STD 63. (It doesn't.)