RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 2633, "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", June 1999

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 3851

Source of RFC: smime (sec)

Errata ID: 405
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Joni Yrjana
Date Reported: 2003-03-12

Section 3.5 says:

   This may be useful in an environment were automatic signature
   verification is desired, as no private key material is required to
   verify a signature.

It should say:

   This may be useful in an environment where automatic signature
   verification is desired, as no private key material is required to
   verify a signature.

Errata ID: 5019
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Josh Soref
Date Reported: 2017-05-14
Verifier Name: Paul Wouters
Date Verified: 2024-01-12

Section 5 says:

id-aa-encrypKeyPref OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}

It should say:

id-aa-encrypKeyPref [sic] OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-aa 11}


encryp isn't a word, it's a typo. Unfortunately, like http's (rfc1945) referer [sic] before it, this is now part of the API.

This error should be highlighted (as rfc2068 does for referer [sic]) so that people are aware that the natural spelling doesn't apply.

If it's possible for a revised RFC to be published suggesting the correct spelling w/ a way for clients/servers to handle the old spelling, that would be nice, but based on precedent, that seems unlikely.

Kathleen Moriarty: As AD, this discussion needs to be continued and possibly with a different draft. As such, I am marking this as hold for document update and listing it as editorial so that there are no n the wire changes at this time with this errata.
There was quite a bit of on list discussion that should be reviewed for any future changes.

One summary from the discussion:
he mailing list participants are copied on these errata to get their opinion in order to inform the AD how to dispose of the errata. Most folks are just making their opinions known.

1) The next thing that folks look at is whether it’s technical or not. Debate ensues, but generally technical errata are those that affect interoperability. This one I don’t think does because there are no changes to the bits on the wire.

2) And, well folks want to get lots of changes, but the change has to run through the consensus process (back to mailing list input).

So to the import bit:

As I see it, there are two ways to get the note incorporated:

1. Write a draft that adds the note; this seems a bit heavy weight for what you are trying to do.

2. Apply the note to the latest RFC/draft that obsoletes RFC 2633; I guess you went for upstream, but generally the IETF applies changes to the latest/greatest RFC/draft. That obsoletes chain is: RFC 3851 obsoleted RFC 2633, RFC 3851 was obsoleted by RFC 5751, and draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis is about to obsolete RFC 5751. Luckily, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis isn’t yet an RFC so there’s an option to have the note added there.

Any objections to adding a note in draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis along the same lines as the note for receipentKeyId?

Paul Wouters (AD): This note made it into RFC 8551, so marking this errata Verified to close it

Report New Errata

Advanced Search