RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5903, "Elliptic Curve Groups modulo a Prime (ECP Groups) for IKE and IKEv2", June 2010

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

Errata ID: 5764
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohit Sethi
Date Reported: 2019-06-27

Section 8 says: 

Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 say "We suppose
that the response Diffie-Hellman private key is:"

It should say:

"We suppose that the responder's Diffie-Hellman private key is:"

Notes:

While the text did not cause me any problems in testing my P-256 implementation, it did initially confuse me. IKE has initiator and responder. The way the text is currently phrased, it seems as if the private key is sent in response to a message from the initiator.

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC 5903, "Elliptic Curve Groups modulo a Prime (ECP Groups) for IKE and IKEv2", June 2010

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

Errata ID: 2308
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-06-22
Rejected by: Sean Turner
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Section 3.1 - 3.3 says: 

a) in Section 3.1:

   Field Size:
    256

b) in Section 3.2:

   Field Size:
    384

c) in Section 3.3:

   Field Size:
    521

It should say:

a)

   Field bit width:
    256

b)

   Field bit width:
    384

c)

   Field bit width:
    521

Notes:

Rationale:

The "size" of a finite field is the number of elements of the field,
according to century-old well-established mathematical terminology.
In the case of Sections 3.1 through 3.3, the field width is the prime
number p given 3 lines above the given snippets.
The idea is to give the number of bits needed to represent the field
elements (integers modulo p), which serve as the x and y coordinates
of the Elliptic Curve group points -- hence this should be denoted as
the bit width of the field (elements), which equals ceil(lb(p)).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
I just can't see keeping this as-is is going to cause any issues for implementers.

Errata ID: 2309
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-06-22
Rejected by: Sean Turner
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Section 10.2 says: 

   [Err9]         RFC Errata, Errata ID 9, RFC 4753,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

It should say:

   [Err9]         RFC Errata, Errata ID 9, RFC 4753; see
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4753>.

Notes:

Rationale:
A less experienced reader will likely have difficulties locating
the Errata entry given only the RFC Editor home page URL.
The RFC 'info' URIs have been introduced by RFC 5741 to provide
stable canonical URIs for all information related to a given RFC;
thus, the proper stable URI should be provided in the reference entry.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The reference entry for Errata ID 9 is similar to how errata were referenced in previous RFCs (5550 and 5724). The URL of the main RFC Editor page was used intentionally, rather than the URL of the specific Errata ID or the RFC's info page (as in Alfred's corrected text).

Report New Errata



Advanced Search