Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9421 (8102)

I confess ignorance on the details of the erratum process but it does seem to be editorial - Both this erratum and 8103 exist only in passing examples and narrative text, not in any requirements language. I’ll gladly bow to whatever the usual thing to do here is.

 — Justin

> On Sep 17, 2024, at 2:37 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Francesca,
> 
> We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).
> 
> Note that Justin Richer believes that this should be verified: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2024JulSep/0254.html

> 
> You may review the report at: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8102

> 
> Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/

> 
> Further information on errata can be found at: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/rv
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2024, at 9:15 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9421,
>> "HTTP Message Signatures".
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8102

>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete.com>
>> 
>> Section: 7.2.8
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> "@status": 200
>> "content-digest": \
>> sha-256=:X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=:
>> "@signature-input": ("@status" "content-digest")
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> "@status": 200
>> "content-digest": \
>> sha-256=:X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=:
>> "@signature-params": ("@status" "content-digest")
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> "@signature-input" should be changed to "@signature-params".
>> 
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
>> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
>> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9421 (draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : HTTP Message Signatures
>> Publication Date    : February 2024
>> Author(s)           : A. Backman, Ed., J. Richer, Ed., M. Sporny
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : HTTP
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2024 20:41:46 UTC