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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

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=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74DmoqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e=
> "
>    and "
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74DmoqBuqfP-&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=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74DmoqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e=
> "
>    and "
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74DmoqBuqfP-&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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSE9Ks8eAw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSE9Ks8eAw$>
> ).
>
> *  Semantic markup
>
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSH6ck1Vaw$
> >.
>
> *  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/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGj2dWypw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGj2dWypw$>
>
>     *  The archive itself:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGJaGSrxw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGJaGSrxw$>
>
>
>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
>
> Section # (or indicate Global)
>
> OLD:
> old text
>
> NEW:
> new text
>
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>
>
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
>
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>
>
> Files
> -----
>
> The files are available here:
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGAUv8cyg$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGAUv8cyg$>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1gSddzQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1gSddzQ$>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1VFJRqA$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1VFJRqA$>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQISexhQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQISexhQ$>
>
> Diff file of the text:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHex2QhVw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHex2QhVw$>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-rfcdiff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQGMBVAQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-rfcdiff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQGMBVAQ$>
> (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-xmldiff1.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSEF8uI1zw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-xmldiff1.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSEF8uI1zw$>
>
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> diff files of the XML.
>
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.original.v2v3.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1XnidrQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.original.v2v3.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1XnidrQ$>
>
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.form.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSFZcRTyPA$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.form.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSFZcRTyPA$>
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGd-lMzUg$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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