Subject: [lamps] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5958 (5962)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 19:02:21 -0800

This RFC was AD-sponsored, so the recipient list for incoming errata
was pretty small.  Forwarding it on to a broader audience for increased
visibility...

-Ben

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 07:38:48AM -0800, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5958,
> "Asymmetric Key Packages".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5962
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Kevin Braun <[email-masked]>
> 
> Section: Appendix A
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    PrivateKeyAlgorithms ALGORITHM ::= {
>      ... -- Extensible
>    }
> 
>    KeyEncryptionAlgorithms ALGORITHM ::= {
>      ... -- Extensible
>    }
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    PrivateKeyAlgorithms PUBLIC-KEY ::= {
>      ... -- Extensible
>    }
> 
>    KeyEncryptionAlgorithms CONTENT-ENCRYPTION ::= {
>      ... -- Extensible
>    }
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The above given information object sets are used in defining types PrivateKeyAlgorithmIdentifier and EncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier:
> 
>    PrivateKeyAlgorithmIdentifier ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
>                                       { PUBLIC-KEY,
>                                         { PrivateKeyAlgorithms } }
> 
>    EncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
>                                        { CONTENT-ENCRYPTION,
>                                          { KeyEncryptionAlgorithms } }
> 
> The parameterized type AlgorithmIdentifier has two parameters, one an information object class and the other an information object set.  The information object set must be contain objects of the given class, or else the table constraint in AlgorithmIdentifier will not be valid.  This requirement is not met as PrivateKeyAlgorithms  and KeyEncryptionAlgorithms are currently defined, and therefore the definition is not valid according to ITU-T X.682.
> 
> An alternative correction would be to change the type definitions to specify "ALGORITHM" in the invocation of the parameterized type AlgorithmIdentifier.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5958 (draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Asymmetric Key Packages
> Publication Date    : August 2010
> Author(s)           : S. Turner
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
> Area                : N/A
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>