RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6931, "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", April 2013

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 9231

Area Assignment: sec

Errata ID: 3965
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Axel Puhlmann
Date Reported: 2014-04-15
Held for Document Update by: Roman Danyliw
Date Held: 2022-01-19

Section 4.2 and 4.1 says:

   2006/12/xmlc12n11#                  [CANON11]  Canonicalization
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#WithComments      [CANON11]  Canonicalization

It should say:

   2006/12/xmlc12n11#   {Bad}          [CANON11]
   2006/12/xmlc14n11#                  [CANON11]


As explained in Appendix B of draft-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris:

[RFC6931] included two bad URIs as shown below. "{Bad}" in the
indexes (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) indicates such a bad value.
Implementations SHOULD only generate the correct URI but SHOULD
understand both the correct and erroneous URI.

Appears in the indices (Section 4.1 and 4.2] of [RFC6931] when it
should be "2006/12/xmlc14n11#" (i.e., the "12" inside "xmlc12n11"
should have been "14"). This is [Err3965] and is corrected in
this document.

==[ Original Text
--[ corrected text
2006/12/xmlc14n11# [CANON11] Canonicalization
2006/12/xmlc14n11#WithComments [CANON11] Canonicalization

-- [notes
[CANON11] referencing to <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-c14n11-20080502/>
only talks about c14n and not c12n.

If this is not a flaw but done purposely, there should be a not about it.

I could not find the original definitions for xmlc12n11 and xmlc14n11.
They are not in the referenced document.
(And google only shows copies of this rfc.)

For stability reasons it may be better to not change/correct this, as it may be already in use.
So a note about this discrepance may be appropriate. Or a reference to the document defining those uris.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search