search

SMPTE / st430-1

Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

incorrect normative reference #2

Closed msheby closed 1 year ago

msheby commented 5 years ago

The references in 5.2.3, 5.2.5.2, and the informative bibliography to ISO 3166 are incorrect; they should instead be to RFC 3066.

Enhancement: the normative reference should be to BCP 47 instead.

msheby commented 4 years ago

ST 429-6 has an amendment 1. ST 430-2 itself needs another revision. ST 430-3 itself needs another revision. RFC 2253 obsoleted by RFC 4514. Bibliography: ST 429-7 itself needs another revision. RFC 1521 obsoleted by RFC 2045. FIPS 140-2 superseded by FIPS 140-3. RFC 2401 obsoleted by RFC 4301. KMG draft replaced by SP 800-57. RFC 2459 obsoleted by RFC 5280. Applied Cryptography has a new edition. RFC 2246 obsoleted by RFC 8446. X.509 08/97 superseded by X.509 10/19. XKMS draft replaced by XKMS 2.0 https://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2/.

palemieux commented 2 years ago

RFC 5646 has obsoleted RFC 3066.

We probably still need to reference RFC 3066 since XML Schema references it.

EDIT: it is more complicated: ST 430-1 uses ST 433, which itself references RFC 3066, but never references ST 433, so it looks like we need to add a reference to ST 433, which removes the need for a reference to RFC 3066.

palemieux commented 2 years ago

RFC 2253 obsoleted by RFC 4514.

RFC 4514 introduces substantive changes to RFC 2253 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4514#appendix-B), so I do not think we can replace the latter by the former without an extensive study... unless all implementations use RFC 4514.

msheby commented 2 years ago

EDIT: it is more complicated: ST 430-1 uses ST 433, which itself references RFC 3066, but never references ST 433, so it looks like we need to add a reference to ST 433, which removes the need for a reference to RFC 3066.

Unfortunately, this is not correct; it references etm:UserText, not dcml:UserText.

palemieux commented 1 year ago

RFC 4514 introduces substantive changes to RFC 2253 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4514#appendix-B), so I do not think we can replace the latter by the former without an extensive study... unless all implementations use RFC 4514.

After further research, it looks like the correct reference is the Distinguished Name Encoding Rules section (https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#dname-encrules) in https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/

msheby commented 1 year ago

Resolved by https://github.com/SMPTE/st430-1-private/releases/tag/r2023-wd1.