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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

This is another friendly reminder that we await your review and approval prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

The files are available 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.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html

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)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Aug 29, 2023, at 9:11 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> The files are available 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.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html
> 
> 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)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Aug 22, 2023, at 5:58 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi David, 
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. 
>> 
>>> The text file still shows my company affiliation as "Comcast". But I assume that's a glitch, since the pdf and html files show the correct affiliation. 
>> 
>> Your company affiliation appears as “Somos” on our end. We suggest refreshing the page to show the most recent updates.
>> 
>>> So I approve the document for publication.
>> 
>> We have noted your approval:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:37 PM, David Hancock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The text file still shows my company affiliation as "Comcast". But I assume that's a glitch, since the pdf and html files show the correct affiliation. So I approve the document for publication.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:13 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris and David,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your replies. We have noted Chris’s approval on the AUTH48 status page and updated David’s company affiliation accordingly.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
>>> 
>>> We will await approvals from David and John before continuing with 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 21, 2023, at 12:27 PM, David Hancock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>