Thanks for the guidance, Rohan and Russ!
We will await Rohan’s updated XML file with further changes.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Feb 4, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> Rohan and RFC Editor:
>
> 1) <!--[rfced] We note a small discrepancy between the ASN.1 snippet in
>> Section 3 and the ASN.1 in Appendix A: the { character at the end
>> of the "id-kp" line in Section 3 is on the following line in the
>> Appendix. Please review and let us know if/how to make these
>> consistent. Might it be possible to simply point the reader to
>> Appendix A instead of repeating the code?
>>
>> Original (Section 3):
>> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
>> iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
>> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
>>
>> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
>>
>> Original (Appendix A):
>> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
>> { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
>> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
>>
>>
>> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
>>
>> -->
>> I followed the formatting conventions of other similar registrations,
>> including RFC9509, which is the most recent registration of an Extended Key
>> Purpose. It also places the opening curly brace in a different location in
>> the textual definition than it does in the MIB. I would tend to keep the
>> status quo unless there is consensus otherwise from the chairs and ADs.
>
> Both formats will work. ASN.1 compilers will be fine with either one.
>
> Russ
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
