Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9448 <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist-13> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chris, 

Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9448

Once we have received approvals from David, Mary, and Jon, we will move this document forward in the publication process.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Aug 1, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Chris Wendt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alanna,
> 
> I reviewed the changes and everything looks good to me.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -Chris
> 
>> On Jul 28, 2023, at 7:33 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Chris, 
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
>> 
>>>> b) Throughout the text, "TNBlock" and "TN Block" appear to be used 
>>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
>>>> may be made consistent.
>>> 
>>> I would correct it with the following text:
>>> Original
>>> … with a particular set of different TN Blocks and/or TNs.  TNAuthList can be constructed to define a limited scope of the TNBlocks or TNs either associated with an SPC or with the scope of TN Blocks or TNs the client has authority over.
>>> 
>>> Modified
>>> … with a particular set of different telephone number ranges and/or telephone numbers.  TNAuthList can be constructed to define a limited scope of the TelephoneNumberRanges or TelephoneNumbers [RFC8226] Section 9 either associated with an SPC or with the scope of telephone number ranges or telephone numbers the client has authority over.
>>> 
>>> TN Block and telephone number range are essentially equivalent terms.
>> 
>> The files have been updated with your modified text. In Section 5.7, we have additionally updated “TNBlock” and “TNs" to be “telephone number ranges” and “telephone numbers”, respectively. Please review and let us know if further updates are necessary.
>> 
>> Original:
>>  Because this specification specifically involves the TNAuthList
>>  defined in [RFC8226] which involves SPC, TNBlock, and individual TNs...
>> 
>> Current:
>>  Because this specification specifically involves the TNAuthList
>>  defined in [RFC8226], which involves SPC, telephone number ranges,
>>  and individual telephone numbers...
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.pdf
>> 
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>> 
>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs.
>> 
>> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9448
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2023, at 8:53 AM, Chris Wendt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Inline:
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2023, at 10:58 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We note the profile name is expanded in Section 5. 
>>>> Would you like to expand it in the title and abstract as well,
>>>> or leave it as simply "TNAuthList"?
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Title):
>>>> TNAuthList profile of ACME Authority Token
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> Telephone Number Authorization List (TNAuthList) Profile
>>>> of Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Authority Token
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Abstract):
>>>> ...using the TNAuthList defined  by STI certificates.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> ... using the Telephone Number Authorization List (TNAuthList) defined by 
>>>> STI certificates.
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> I think i’d actually like to do the opposite and not expand it in Section 5.
>>> 
>>> So for Section 5:
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The Telephone Number Authority List Authority Token (TNAuthList Authority Token) is a profile instance …
>>> 
>>> Modified:
>>> The TNAuthList Authority Token is a profile instance …
>>> 
>>> My justification for that is that i looked at RFC8226 and TNAuthList is just defined and never expanded.  I’m up for discussion on that conclusion, but i think that is probably the correct thing to do.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular
>>>> from "as per" onward. It doesn't parse. Is citing 
>>>> "[RFC8555]" as an adjective necessary? 
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The format of the string that represents the TNAuthList MUST be
>>>> constructed using base64url encoding, as per [RFC8555] base64url
>>>> encoding described in Section 5 of [RFC4648] according to the profile
>>>> specified in JSON Web Signature in Section 2 of [RFC7515].
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> The string that represents the TNAuthList MUST be
>>>> constructed using base64url encoding, as described in 
>>>> Section 5 of [RFC4648] and as defined in Section 2
>>>> of JSON Web Signature [RFC7515].
>>>> -->   
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, much cleaner
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] Should it be "Telephone Number Authority List" or 
>>>> "Telephone Number Authorization List"? Both forms are used within
>>>> this document.
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Section 3):
>>>> the TN Authorization List
>>>> 
>>>> vs. 
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Section 5):
>>>> The Telephone Number Authority List Authority Token (TNAuthList
>>>> Authority Token) is a profile instance of ...
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Similar to answer for comment 1 above, we should only use TNAuthList
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Are these terms equivalent? If so, should Section 5.4 
>>>> be updated to use the shorter form?
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Section 3):
>>>> the TNAuthList ASN.1 object
>>>> 
>>>> vs. 
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Section 5.4):
>>>> the TN Authorization List certificate extension ASN.1 object
>>>> -->   
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes please make Section 5.4 say “the TNAuthList certificate extension ASN.1 object
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] It does not appear that "Protected header" is defined in RFC 9447. 
>>>> Please review and let us know if/how this citation should be updated. Additionally,
>>>> may we make "Protected" lowercase?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The TNAuthList Authority Token Protected header MUST comply with the
>>>> Authority Token Protected header as defined in
>>>> [I-D.ietf-acme-authority-token].
>>>> -->   
>>> 
>>> Protected header (and more specifically JWS Protected Header) is originally defined in RFC7515.  It does seem that whenever it’s referred to in 7515 or related documents it is all capitalized.
>>> That said, if I look at RFC8555 (ACME) it has both capitalized and non-capitalized (without JWS prefix) references.
>>> I think colloquially people generally say just “protected header”.
>>> 
>>> We inherit the use of protected header through RFC8555 usage, so I think the right reference is RFC8555 Section 6.2.
>>> 
>>> You are correct that authority token draft focuses on “atc" as a new identifier for inclusion in the protected header, but doesn’t mention protected header other than showing an example.
>>> 
>>> So, my proposed fix would be the following:
>>> The TNAuthList Authority Token protected header MUST comply with [RFC8555] Section 6.2 Request Authentication.
>>> 
>>> The following paragraph includes the MUST for including “atc” which is the authority token draft requirement being referred to.
>>> 
>>> A second option would be to remove the sentence, it is perhaps redundant since the MUST compliance with 8555 might be a bit redundant.  Feedback is welcome.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 7231 does not contain a Section 14.8. 
>>>> Also, RFC 7231 has been obsoleted by RFC 9110; may we replace this
>>>> reference to RFC 7231 with one to RFC 9110? If so, please provide
>>>> the accurate section number.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> For example, an HTTP authorization header containing a
>>>> valid authorization credentials as defined in [RFC7231] Section 14.8.
>>>> -->  
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, RFC9110 Section 11.6.2 Authorization Header.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] In Section 6, are the steps listed meant to occur in a specific order?
>>>> Should the list be converted to a numbered list?
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes i think that would be appropriate.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Should "JWS signature" be updated to simply "JWS" to avoid redundancy
>>>> (if expanded, "JWS signature" would read "JSON Web Signature signature"). Please review
>>>> and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> JSON Web Signature (JWS, [RFC7515]) objects can include an "x5u"
>>>> header parameter to refer to a certificate that is used to validate
>>>> the JWS signature.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515] objects can include an "x5u"
>>>> header parameter to refer to a certificate that is used to validate
>>>> the JWS.
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> RFC7515 Section 5.1 refers to JWS Signature as well.  Basically a JWS object contains a signature section and that is what we are referring to in the last part of the sentence.  So i think it’s correct as is.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] In the reference below, the URL provided returns a 
>>>> "document not found" error. We have updated the URL as follows,
>>>> and the other information accordingly. Please review and let us 
>>>> know any updates.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [ATIS-1000080]
>>>>           ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group, "Signature-based Handling
>>>>           of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) Governance
>>>>           Model and Certificate Management
>>>>           <https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/
>>>>           download.php/32237/ATIS-1000080.pdf>", July 2017.
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> [ATIS-1000080]
>>>>           ATIS, "Signature-based Handling of Asserted information
>>>>           using toKENs (SHAKEN): Governance Model and Certificate
>>>>           Management", ATIS-1000080.v005, December 2022,
>>>>           <https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/
>>>>           download.php/69428/ATIS-1000080.v005.pdf>.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, this is an unfortunate thing with ATIS document links, but the update is fine.  An alternative would be to remove the URL and just refer to the document.  I am ok either way.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Terminology
>>>> 
>>>> a) We see that "CA" was expanded as both "certificate authority"
>>>> (1 instance) and "certification authority". FYI, we have updated
>>>> this term to the latter. (This matches the guidance received from 
>>>> experts in the past and matches usage in RFC 9447.) Please let us 
>>>> know if you object.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> This section defines
>>>> an optional mechanism for the Certificate Authority (CA) to host the
>>>> certificate directly and provide a URL that the ACME client owner can
>>>> directly reference in the "x5u" of their signed PASSporTs.
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> This section defines
>>>> an optional mechanism for the certification authority (CA) to host the
>>>> certificate directly and provide a URL that the ACME client owner can
>>>> directly reference in the "x5u" of their signed PASSporTs.
>>> 
>>> Yes, certification authority is good.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> b) Throughout the text, "TNBlock" and "TN Block" appear to be used 
>>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
>>>> may be made consistent.
>>> 
>>> I would correct it with the following text:
>>> Original
>>> … with a particular set of different TN Blocks and/or TNs.  TNAuthList can be constructed to define a limited scope of the TNBlocks or TNs either associated with an SPC or with the scope of TN Blocks or TNs the client has authority over.
>>> 
>>> Modified
>>> … with a particular set of different telephone number ranges and/or telephone numbers.  TNAuthList can be constructed to define a limited scope of the TelephoneNumberRanges or TelephoneNumbers [RFC8226] Section 9 either associated with an SPC or with the scope of telephone number ranges or telephone numbers the client has authority over.
>>> 
>>> TN Block and telephone number range are essentially equivalent terms.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> c) FYI, we have added expansions for the following abbreviations
>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>>> 
>>>> Certificate Signing Request (CSR)
>>>> Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT)
>>>> Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using ToKENs (SHAKEN)
>>>> Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR)
>>>> Voice over IP (VoIP)
>>>> —>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes those are correct.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. 
>>>> 
>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still 
>>>> be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>> -->  
>>> 
>>> Reviewed and didn’t find anything.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/ar/ap
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> 
>>>> Updated 2023/07/24
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>> --------------
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>> 
>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>> 
>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>>>> your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> Planning your review 
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>> 
>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>> 
>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>>>> follows:
>>>> 
>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>> 
>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
>>>> 
>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Content 
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>> - contact information
>>>> - references
>>>> 
>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>> 
>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Submitting changes
>>>> ------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
>>>> include:
>>>> 
>>>> *  your coauthors
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>> 
>>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>>>>  IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>>>>  responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>>>>  to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>>>>  list:
>>>> 
>>>> *  More info:
>>>>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>> 
>>>> *  The archive itself:
>>>>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>> 
>>>> *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>>>>    of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>    If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>>>>    have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>>>>    [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>>>>    its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>>>> 
>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>> 
>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>> — OR —
>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>> 
>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> old text
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> new text
>>>> 
>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>> 
>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Approving for publication
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Files 
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> The files are available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> 
>>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-xmldiff1.html
>>>> 
>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>>>> diff files of the XML.  
>>>> 
>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.original.v2v3.xml 
>>>> 
>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>>>> only: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.form.xml
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>> 
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9448
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9448 (draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist-13)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : TNAuthList profile of ACME Authority Token
>>>> Author(s)        : C. Wendt, D. Hancock, M. Barnes, J. Peterson
>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Deb Cooley, Deb Cooley, Yoav Nir
>>>> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters
>> 
>