Subject: RE: RFC 4034 typographical error ?

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:27:40 -0400

There haven't been any comments on this. I'll submit an errata to the RFC editor in a couple of weeks unless I hear something to the contrary.

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 11:02 PM
To: 'Abhijit Hayatnagarkar'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RFC 4034 typographical error ?

This is indeed a typo. It should be the 3rd and 2nd to last octets.

When I designed the key tag for RSA, I didn't want to use the bottom octet as the bottom bit is always on and their might be other patterns in the relative occurance of values in the bottom octet. So I decided to ignore the bottom octet and take the next two.
 
Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abhijit Hayatnagarkar
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RFC 4034 typographical error ?

[ Moderators note: This post needed manual approval.

   Either it was posted by a non-subscribed address, or the posting
   was too large ( > 20000bytes ) for this list.

   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
   delete posts that need manual approval.

   Please use your subscribed address to post, or shorten your
   postings by using links instead of attachments. ]

Appendix B.1 of RFC 4034 says:

"
   For a
   DNSKEY RR with algorithm 1, the key tag is defined to be the most
   significant 16 bits of the least significant 24 bits in the public
   key modulus (in other words, the 4th to last and 3rd to last octets
   of the public key modulus).
"

Thus, if the last 4 octets of the public key modulus are 0x11223344,
then this would mean that the keytag will have the value 0x2233.

If so, should the part in parenthesis be changed to

"(in other words, the 3rd to last and 2nd to last octets
  of the public key modulus)
"

?

Thanks,
Abhijit Hayatngarkar
Senior Engineer
SPARTA, Inc.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:52:47 +0200

On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:27:40 -0400 

> There haven't been any comments on this. I'll submit an errata to the RFC editor in a couple of weeks unless I hear something to the contrary.

I concur, thanks for keeping an eye on this Donald.

Besides this typo should be mentioned in the "clarification and
implementation notes" draft that Weiler et al ("et al" still to be
determined) are maintaining
(draft-weiler-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-00, to be published as
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-00)

-- Olaf