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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>> 
>> 
>