Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9447 <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-09> for your review

[David Hancock <[e-mail]>]

Please update my company affiliation from Comcast to Somos Inc. in two
places...

 ---
On title page, authors list:
OLD:
  D. Hancock
  Comcast
  C. Wendt
  Somos

NEW:
  D. Hancock
  C.Wendt
  Somos

On the last page, list of Authors' Addresses
OLD:
   David Hancock
   Comcast
   Email: [e-mail]

NEW:
   David Hancock
   Somos
   Email: [e-mail]
---
Thanks,
David


On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 12:29 PM Chris Wendt <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Everything looks good, i approve.
>
> > On Aug 21, 2023, at 1:27 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John, David, and Chris,
> >
> > This is a friendly reminder that we await you reviews and approvals
> before continuing with the publication process.
> >
> > Additionally, please let us know if/how you would like the “type”
> attribute set for the <sourcecode> elements in this document:
> >>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
> element
> >>> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
> >>> values for "type" (
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
> >>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us
> >>> know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> >>> -->
> >>>
> >>> <JFP> I’m not aware I’m using sourcecode as an element in the XML.
> These are all figure/artwork blocks.
> >>
> >> Currently, there are 3 instances of the <sourcecode> element in this
> document:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-6
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-8
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-5.1-2
> >>
> >> For background, "The <artwork> element should not be used for source
> code and formal languages, the <sourcecode> element should be used
> instead.” (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#artwork).
> <sourcecode> is used to contain code that compiles or does not; it can be
> one of the preferred “type" values or no type at all. Please review and let
> us know if/how you would like the “type” attribute set.
> >
> > The files are available here:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.xml
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html
> >
> > AUTH48 diff:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-auth48diff.html
> >
> > Comprehensive diffs:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-rfcdiff.html
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 14, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Roman,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48
> status page:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2023, at 9:13 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Approved.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Roman
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:21 PM
> >>>> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; Peterson, Jon
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; chris-
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> acme-
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9447
> <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-
> >>>> 09> for your review
> >>>>
> >>>> Jon, David, Chris, and Roman*,
> >>>>
> >>>> *Roman (AD) - This is a friendly reminder that we await your review
> and
> >>>> approval of the changes to the RFC 2119/8174 keywords in Sections 4
> and 7
> >>>> and the removal of RFCs 3986 and 4648 from the Normative References
> >>>> section. These updates can be seen in this diff file:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-auth48diff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Authors - Please let us know if/how you would like the “type”
> attribute set for
> >>>> the <sourcecode> elements in this document:
> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
> >>>>>> element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list
> of
> >>>>>> preferred values for "type"
> >>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
> >>>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
> >>>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> I’m not aware I’m using sourcecode as an element in the XML.
> These
> >>>> are all figure/artwork blocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, there are 3 instances of the <sourcecode> element in this
> >>>> document:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-6
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-8
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-5.1-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For background, "The <artwork> element should not be used for source
> code
> >>>> and formal languages, the <sourcecode> element should be used
> instead.”
> >>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#artwork).
> <sourcecode> is used
> >>>> to contain code that compiles or does not; it can be one of the
> preferred “type"
> >>>> values or no type at all. Please review and let us know if/how you
> would like
> >>>> the “type” attribute set.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We will await any further changes as well approvals from Jon, David,
> Chris, and
> >>>> *Roman prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> >>>>
> >>>> The files are available here:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.xml
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html
> >>>>
> >>>> AUTH48 diff:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-auth48diff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Comprehensive diffs:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-rfcdiff.html
> >>>>
> >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 4, 2023, at 8:56 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jon, Mary, and Roman*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Roman (AD) - Please review and approve of the changes to the RFC
> >>>> 2119/8174 keywords in Sections 4 and 7 and the removal of RFCs 3986
> and
> >>>> 4648 from the Normative References section. These updates can be seen
> in this
> >>>> diff file:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files
> accordingly.
> >>>> Mary’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page, and we
> assume
> >>>> her assent to changes from the other coauthors unless we hear
> otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
> >>>>>> element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list
> of
> >>>>>> preferred values for "type"
> >>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
> >>>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
> >>>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> I’m not aware I’m using sourcecode as an element in the XML.
> These
> >>>> are all figure/artwork blocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, there are 3 instances of the <sourcecode> element in this
> >>>> document:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-6
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-4-8
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html#section-5.1-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For background, "The <artwork> element should not be used for source
> code
> >>>> and formal languages, the <sourcecode> element should be used
> instead.”
> >>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#artwork).
> <sourcecode> is used
> >>>> to contain code that compiles or does not; it can be one of the
> preferred “type"
> >>>> values or no type at all. Please review and let us know if/how you
> would like
> >>>> the “type” attribute set.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.xml
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html (comprehensive
> >>>>> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-auth48diff.html
> >>>>> (AUTH48 changes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> >>>> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
> document is
> >>>> published as an RFC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We will await approvals from Jon, David, Chris, and *Roman (AD)
> prior to
> >>>> moving this document forward in the publication process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 3, 2023, at 10:39 AM, Mary Barnes <
> [e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the document is fine with consideration of Jon’s comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 7:26 AM Peterson, Jon
> >>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Please see my responses marked as <JFP> below. Thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 1:56 AM
> >>>>>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9447
> >>>>>> <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-09> for your review
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Authors,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> >>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please note the the title of the document has been
> updated as
> >>>> follows.
> >>>>>> The abbreviation has been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
> ("RFC Style
> >>>> Guide").
> >>>>>> Please review.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> ACME Challenges Using an Authority Token
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current:
> >>>>>> Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Challenges Using
> >>>>>> an Authority Token
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, should "Authority" be "Token Authority"
> here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> For example, imagine a case where an Authority for DNS names knows
> >>>>>> that a client is eligible to receive certificates for
> >>>> "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> >>>> 3A__example.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> >>>> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> >>>> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> >>>> moqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e= "
> >>>>>> and "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> >>>> 3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> >>>> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> >>>> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> >>>> moqBuqfP-&s=4D7dUBWOxRL7tTWU2ITbtLplCX7E9Qd3UwLDnUwylWo&e= ".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> For example, imagine a case where a Token Authority for DNS names
> >>>> knows
> >>>>>> that a client is eligible to receive certificates for
> >>>> "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> >>>> 3A__example.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> >>>> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> >>>> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> >>>> moqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e= "
> >>>>>> and "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> >>>> 3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> >>>> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> >>>> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> >>>> moqBuqfP-&s=4D7dUBWOxRL7tTWU2ITbtLplCX7E9Qd3UwLDnUwylWo&e= ".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK. Below is not correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Similarly (for the reverse), should "Token" be "Authority Token"
> here?
> >>>>>> Or, perhaps using just one word was intended to mitigate confusion?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> ...an ACME server can use the
> >>>>>> binding to determine that a Token presented by a client was in fact
> >>>>>> granted by the Token Authority based on a request from the client,
> >>>>>> and not from some other entity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> ...an ACME server can use the
> >>>>>> binding to determine that an Authority Token presented by a client
> was in
> >>>> fact
> >>>>>> granted by the Token Authority based on a request from the client,
> >>>>>> and not from some other entity.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] As "OPTIONALLY" is not a key word that appears in RFC
> >>>>>> 2119, may this sentence be rephrased to use "OPTIONAL"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> For this ACME Authority Token usage of JWT, the payload of the JWT
> >>>>>> OPTIONALLY contain an "iss" indicating the Token Authority that
> >>>>>> generated the token, if the "x5u" or "x5c" element in the header
> does
> >>>>>> not already convey that information...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> For this ACME Authority Token usage of JWT, it is OPTIONAL for the
> >>>>>> payload of the JWT to contain an "iss" indicating the Token
> Authority that
> >>>>>> generated the token if the "x5u" or "x5c" element in the header does
> >>>>>> not already convey that information...
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8226 does not contain mention of
> "tkvalue".
> >>>>>> Please review and let us know if/how this citation should be
> updated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> Following the example of [I-D.ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist],
> >>>>>> the "tktype" identifier type could be the TNAuthList, with a
> >>>>>> "tkvalue" as defined in [RFC8226] that the Token Authority is
> >>>>>> attesting.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> Good catch. We’re not saying that the “tkvalue” element is
> defined in
> >>>> RFC8226, but that the value of the “tkvalue” element is a TNAuthList
> has
> >>>> defiend in RFC8226. So maybe:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The “tktype” identifier type could be the TNAuthList (as defined in
> >>>> [RFC8226]), which would be the value for the “tkvalue” element that
> the Token
> >>>> Authority is attesting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] In Section 4, the following lines in sourcecode
> >>>>>> exceeded the 69-character limit. Line breaks have been added as
> >>>>>> follows; please review and let us know if these lines should appear
> in a
> >>>> different manner.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original (lines 407 and 408):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> "atc":{"tktype":"TnAuthList","tkvalue":"F83n2a...avn27DN3==","fingerprint":
> >>>>>>  "SHA256
> >>>> 56:3E:CF:AE:83:CA:4D:15:B0:29:FF:1B:71:D3:BA:B9:19:81:F8:50:
> >>>>>>  9B:DF:4A:D4:39:72:E2:B1:F0:B9:38:E3"}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current:
> >>>>>>  "atc":{"tktype":"TnAuthList","tkvalue":"F83n2a...avn27DN3==",
> >>>>>>  "fingerprint":"SHA256 56:3E:CF:AE:83:CA:4D:15:B0:29:FF:1B:71:D3:
> >>>>>>  BA:B9:19:81:F8:50:9B:DF:4A:D4:39:72:E2:B1:F0:B9:38:E3"}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original (lines 424 and 425):
> >>>>>>
> "atc":{"tktype":"TnAuthList","tkvalue":"F83n2a...avn27DN3==","ca":true,
> >>>>>> "fingerprint":"SHA256
> >>>> 56:3E:CF:AE:83:CA:4D:15:B0:29:FF:1B:71:D3:BA:B9:19:81:F8:50:
> >>>>>> 9B:DF:4A:D4:39:72:E2:B1:F0:B9:38:E3"} }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current:
> >>>>>> "atc":{"tktype":"TnAuthList","tkvalue":"F83n2a...avn27DN3==",
> >>>>>> "ca":true,"fingerprint":"SHA256 56:3E:CF:AE:83:CA:4D:15:B0:29:FF:1B:
> >>>>>> 71:D3:BA:B9:19:81:F8:50:9B:DF:4A:D4:39:72:E2:B1:F0:B9:38:E3"} }
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
> >>>>>> element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list
> of
> >>>>>> preferred values for "type"
> >>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
> >>>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
> >>>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> I’m not aware I’m using sourcecode as an element in the XML.
> These
> >>>> are all figure/artwork blocks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] RFC 7231 has been obsoleted by RFC 9110.  May we
> >>>>>> replace RFC 7231 with RFC 9110 in this sentence?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> In order to request an Authority Token from a Token Authority, a
> >>>>>> client sends a HTTPS POST request [RFC7231] .
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Per RFCs 2119 and 8174, may we update "SHOULD not" to
> >>>> "SHOULD NOT"
> >>>>>> in the sentence below?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> ACME services relying
> >>>>>> on Authority Tokens SHOULD not issue certificates with a longer
> >>>>>> expiry than the expiry of the Authority Token.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The following references are not cited in the text.
> >>>>>> Please let us know where they should be cited or if these references
> >>>>>> should be deleted from the References section.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
> >>>>>>           Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
> >>>>>>           RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
> >>>>>>           <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>> editor.org/info/rfc3986__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb
> >>>> 08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGkYIcdPQ$
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
> >>>>>>           Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
> >>>>>>           <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>> editor.org/info/rfc4648__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb
> >>>> 08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSH2BxuGBg$
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> Um, I suppose we don’t need those cited.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "ACME Identifier Type", "ACME
> >>>>>> Identifier type", and "ACME identifier type" appear were used
> >>>>>> inconsistently. We have updated all occurrences to capitalized,
> i.e., "ACME
> >>>> Identifier Type".
> >>>>>> Please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> I only see one instance of that construction where “type” is
> >>>> uncapitalized in the -09 XML source (and none where “identifier” is
> >>>> uncapitalized in that construction), but forcing capitalization is
> fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JSON Web Signature (JWS)
> >>>>>> Telephone Number Authorization List (TNAuthList)
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
> >>>>>> the online Style Guide
> >>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>
> editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZh
> >>>> vvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-
> >>>> PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHw1FLyNA$ > 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.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> OK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <JFP> Thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor/ar/ar
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-
> >>>> info/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> >>>> GflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSE9Ks8eAw$ ).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *  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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-
> >>>> vocabulary__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Z
> >>>> fvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSH6ck1Vaw$ >.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *  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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iet
> >>>>>> f-announce/yb6lpIGh-
> >>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CC
> >>>>>> sAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-
> >>>> PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bS
> >>>>>> Gj2dWypw$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *  The archive itself:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/
> >>>>>>
> >>>> auth48archive/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9x
> >>>> kR
> >>>>>> 4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGJaGSrxw$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *  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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> >>>> Gf
> >>>>>> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGAUv8cyg$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvC
> >>>> OjG
> >>>>>> flOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1gSddzQ$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> >>>> Gf
> >>>>>> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1VFJRqA$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.txt__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> >>>> Gf
> >>>>>> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQISexhQ$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>> 7-
> >>>> diff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Zf
> >>>>>> vCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHex2QhVw$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>> 7-
> >>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR
> >>>>>> 4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQGMBVAQ$  (side
> >>>> by
> >>>>>> side)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>> 7-
> >>>> xmldiff1.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xk
> >>>>>> R4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSEF8uI1zw$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> >>>>>> diff files of the XML.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.original.v2v3.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QL
> >>>>>> J9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1XnidrQ$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> updates
> >>>>>> only:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 7.form.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Z
> >>>> fv
> >>>>>> COjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSFZcRTyPA$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tracking progress
> >>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> >>>>>>
> >>>> __;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJ
> >>>> Jj
> >>>>>> W2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGd-lMzUg$
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>>> RFC9447 (draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-09)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Title            : ACME Challenges Using an Authority Token
> >>>>>> Author(s)        : J. Peterson, M. Barnes, D. Hancock, C. Wendt
> >>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Deb Cooley, Deb Cooley, Yoav Nir
> >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>