RFC 6844, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record", January 2013

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8659

Errata ID: 5452
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Rich Salz
Date Reported: 2018-08-06
Held for Document Update by: EKR
Date Held: 2018-11-30

Throughout the document, when it says:

The EBNF (scattered throughout the document) does not match the examples
nor the prose. It is also ambiguous in places (allowing two different
interpretations of a parameter list), and nonsensical in others (such
as the handling of whitespace).

It should say:

The EBNF should be corrected as follows:

issuevalue = *WSP [domain *WSP] [";" *WSP [parameters *WSP]]

domain = label *("." label)
label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))

parameters = (parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters) / parameter
parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value
tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT)
value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)

Notes:

[EBNF, text, examples do not match.]

I am proposing this on behalf of the IETF ACME WG. We want to submit a standards-track document, but the current CAA specification is broken. We know it is being revised, but we do not want to wait. Our AD has said to submit the errata and he will accept it.

Report New Errata