Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9538 <draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme-04> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased as follows for readability?

Original:
   RFC9115 allows delegating entities to remain in
   full control of the delegation and be able to revoke it any time and
   this avoids the need to share private cryptographic key material
   between the involved entities.

Perhaps:
   Per RFC 9115, delegating entities can remain in
   full control of the delegation and can revoke it at any time.
   This avoids the need to share private cryptographic key material
   between the involved entities.
-->


2) <!--[rfced] FYI, in Section 1.1, we added mention of "STAR" so that it
is expanded upon first use. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
(In the original, the first use was in Section 3 - "ACME STAR delegation"
was followed by explanation but was without a direct expansion.)

Original:
   It also uses
   terminology from Section 1.2 of [RFC8739] and Section 1.1 of
   [RFC9115].

Current:
   It also uses
   terminology from Section 1.2 of [RFC8739] and Section 1.1 of
   [RFC9115], including Short-Term, Automatically Renewed (STAR),
   as applied to X.509 certificates.
-->


3) <!--[rfced] How may this sentence be rephrased for clarity? In particular,
"allows to specify" is not clear. Also, Section 2.3.1.3 of RFC 9115
indicates that the CNAME mapping is optional; should this sentence be
updated to reflect that?

Original:
      |   Note: The delegation object defined in Section 2.3.1.3 of
      |  [RFC9115] only allows to specify DNS mappings using CNAME RRs.

Perhaps:
      |   Note: The delegation object defined in Section 2.3.1.3 of
      |  [RFC9115] only allows DNS mappings to be specified using CNAME RRs.

Or:
      |   Note: The delegation object defined in Section 2.3.1.3 of
      |  [RFC9115] allows DNS mappings to be specified using only CNAME RRs.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] FYI, for readability and precision, we have made the following
updates: split this into two sentences, changed "criticality around"
to "criticality of", and changed "which" to "this account".
Please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise.

Original:
   The reader is expected to understand the ACME delegation trust model
   (Section 7.1 of [RFC9115]) and security goal (Section 7.2 of
   [RFC9115]), in particular the criticality around the protection of
   the user account associated with the delegation, which authorizes all
   the security relevant operations between dCDN and uCDN over the ACME
   channel.

Current:
   The reader is expected to understand the ACME delegation trust model
   (Section 7.1 of [RFC9115]) and security goal (Section 7.2 of
   [RFC9115]).  In particular, the reader is expected to understand the
   criticality of the protection of the user account associated with the
   delegation; this account authorizes all the security-relevant
   operations between a dCDN and a uCDN over the ACME channel.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ar


On Jan 22, 2024, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/01/22

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9538-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9538

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9538 (draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme-04)

Title            : Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Delegation Using the Automated Certificate Management Environment
Author(s)        : F. Fieau, Ed., S. Emile, S. Mishra
WG Chair(s)      : Kevin J. Ma, Sanjay Mishra
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini