Subject: [KEYPROV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6030 (3369)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:47:27 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6030,
"Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6030&eid=3369

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>

Section: 4.3.1

Original Text
-------------
   <Manufacturer>:  This element indicates the manufacturer of the
      device.  Values for the <Manufacturer> element MUST be taken from
      either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or from the IANA
      Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the
      Organization value.  When the value is taken from [OATHMAN],
      "oath."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "oath.<prefix value
      from [OATHMAN]>").  When the value is taken from [IANAPENREG],
      "iana."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "iana.<Organization
      value from [IANAPENREG]>").

Corrected Text
--------------
   <Manufacturer>:  This element indicates the manufacturer of the
      device.  Values for the <Manufacturer> element MAY be taken from
      either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or from the IANA
      Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the
      Organization value.  When the value is taken from [OATHMAN],
      "oath."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "oath.<prefix value
      from [OATHMAN]>").  When the value is taken from [IANAPENREG],
      "iana."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "iana.<Organization
      value from [IANAPENREG]>").

Notes
-----
The only thing changed is relaxing MUST to MAY.

The requirement that manufacturer strings begin with "oath." and "iana." is often ignored by implementations/deployments.  Further, none of the examples throughout the document conform to the syntax.  While we could regard these as implementation/deployment and editorial document bugs, I would argue that we could just as well relax the technical requirement because there appears to be no harm in allowing free-form text.  This is what people appear to be using out there already.

Examples of non-conforming <Manufacturer> fields out there:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm-profiles-01
http://download.gooze.eu/otp/seeds/20120919-test001-4282.xml

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6030 (draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC)
Publication Date    : October 2010
Author(s)           : P. Hoyer, M. Pei, S. Machani
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Provisioning of Symmetric Keys
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG