Subject: Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7030 (5108)

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:40:26 -0400

Note that this issue was discovered during IESG review of draft-turner-est-extensions.  Alexey, Panos, Dan, Max, and myself worked on the wording.  I’m hoping it can stew for a couple of days and then be marked as accepted.

spt

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 16:19, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7030,
> "Enrollment over Secure Transport".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5108
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
> 
> Section: 4.2.3, 4.4.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> OLD from s.4.2.3:
> 
>  If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a plaintext
>  human-readable error message containing explanatory information
>  describing why the request was rejected (for example, indicating that
>  CSR attributes are incomplete).
> 
> OLD from s4.4.2:
> 
>  If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a plaintext
>  human-readable error message.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> NEW for s4.2.3:
> 
>  If the content-type is not set, the response data must be a plaintext
>  human-readable error message containing explanatory information
>  describing why the request was rejected (for example, indicating that
>  CSR attributes are incomplete).  Servers MAY use the "text/plain”
>  content-type [RFC2046] for human-readable errors.
> 
> NEW for s4.4.2:
> 
>  If the content-type is not set, the response data must be a plaintext
>  human-readable error message. Servers MAY use the "text/plain”
>  content-type [RFC2046] for human-readable errors.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The current text is somewhat unclear as to what content-type needs to be used for the human-readable error.  There are many human-readable content-types, but "text/plain" seems to be the most sensible.
> 
> Note that the MUST was reduced to a must because no content-type is specified.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7030 (draft-ietf-pkix-est-09)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Enrollment over Secure Transport
> Publication Date    : October 2013
> Author(s)           : M. Pritikin, Ed., P. Yee, Ed., D. Harkins, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG