RFC Errata


Found 1 record.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 3061, "A URN Namespace of Object Identifiers", February 2001

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 1751
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2009-04-02
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2009-07-18

Section 1 says: 

   o  0.9.2342.19200300.100.4 - Object ID's used in the directory pilot
      project to identify X.500 Object Classes.  Mostly defined in RFC
      1274.

   This document specifies the "oid" URN namespace [2].  This namespace
   is for encoding an Object Identifier as specified in ASN.1 [3] as a
   URI.  RFC 3001 [1] is obsoleted by this specification.

   The namespace specification is for a formal namespace.

It should say:

   o  0.9.2342.19200300.100.4 - Object ID's used in the directory pilot
      project to identify X.500 Object Classes.  Mostly defined in RFC
      1274.  RFC 1274 is now obsolete.  The usage description of these 
      identifiers now appears in RFC 4524 and the relevant registry is 
      defined in RFC 4520.

   This document specifies the "oid" URN namespace [2].  This namespace
   is for encoding an Object Identifier as specified in ASN.1 [3] as a
   URI.  RFC 3001 [1] is obsoleted by this specification.

   The namespace specification is for a formal namespace.

   A complete database of OIDs appears at http://www.oid-info.com/

Notes:

This suggested change is not substantive and makes no change to the spec itself. Instead, it supplies some additional, up-to-date, information that might be helpful to the reader and is intended to act as a placeholder to record that information for any future revision or update to 3061.

Note to RFC Editor: the source for this document is listed as "legacy", perhaps because it was published as Informational. However, it is the definition source for a Formal URN Namespace and those namespaces require IETF consensus action (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml), so the erratum should probably be processed as if it were a standards-track document.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search