RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 6920, "Naming Things with Hashes", April 2013

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

Errata ID: 4248
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Matthew Kerwin
Date Reported: 2015-01-28
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2015-01-29

Section 8.2 says: 

   | .well-known URL (split over 2 lines):                             |
   | http://example.com/.well-known/ni/sha256/                         |
   | UyaQV-Ev4rdLoHyJJWCi11OHfrYv9E1aGQAlMO2X_-Q                       |

It should say:

   | .well-known URL (split over 2 lines):                             |
   | http://example.com/.well-known/ni/sha-256/                        |
   | UyaQV-Ev4rdLoHyJJWCi11OHfrYv9E1aGQAlMO2X_-Q                       |

Notes:

The 'alg' part of the well-known URL should be the same as that of the ni URI ("sha-256"), but is missing the hyphen in the example.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 6920, "Naming Things with Hashes", April 2013

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

Errata ID: 8174
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Henry Jalonen
Date Reported: 2024-11-12
Held for Document Update by: Orie Steele
Date Held: 2024-11-19

Section 9.4 says: 

the hash algorithm name string

It should say:

the case-(in)sensitive hash algorithm name string

Notes:

The RFC does not specify whether the Hash Name String is considered to be case-sensitive or not. According to RFC 8126, section 2.2., it should be clearly stated whether case matters, like in RFC 7518, section 7.1.1. Does this mean one should interpret them as case-insensitive?

Verifier notes:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920#section-2
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2234#section-6.1

alg = 1*unreserved
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z

Its clear that algorithm name's can contain uppercase characters.

In the discussion regarding this errata, there was no objection to the following comment

> this should have been case sensitive and restricted to lower-case only in the ABNF (now it’s “unreserved”).

Such a change cannot be made through the errata process, and requires an update.

None the less the current registry contains no uppercase character based algorithm names, and hopefully won't in the future.

Errata ID: 7129
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Venkatesh
Date Reported: 2022-09-13
Held for Document Update by: RFC Editor
Date Held: 2022-09-19

Section 8.1 says: 

   The following ni URI is generated from the text "Hello World!" (12
   characters without the quotes), using the sha-256 algorithm shown
   with and without an authority field:

   ni:///sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

   ni://example.com/sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

It should say:

   The following ni URI is generated from the text "Hello World!" (12
   characters without the quotes), using the sha-256 algorithm shown
   with and without an authority field:

   ni://example.com/sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

   ni:///sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

Notes:

Make example consistent with the "with and without" language.

--VERIFIER NOTES--
This has been marked as held for document update per author input: co-authors […] concluded that indeed it would be more clear if the order of the examples was changed as suggested by the report.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search