seems legit to me.
At Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:35 -0800 (PST), RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8360, > "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper <ydah...@gmail.com> > > Section: 4.2.4.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > Notes > ----- > There seems to be a copy-paste error. > > There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none > explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. > > All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and > AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe > that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first > three. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation > Reconsidered > Publication Date : April 2018 > Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, > A. Newton, D. Shaw > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
