Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9525 <draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-15> 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] FYI: We updated the short title (that spans the header of
the PDF) as follows since there is enough space to fit the full
title.

Original:
   Service Identity

Current:
   Service Identity in TLS
-->


2) <!--[rfced] We capitalized "independent" for Peter's organization,
which matches use in RFC 9325. If the original form is preferred
instead, please let us know.

Original:
   Peter Saint-Andre
   independent
   United States of America
   Email: [e-mail]

Current:
   Peter Saint-Andre
   Independent
   United States of America
   Email: [e-mail]
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


4) <!--[rfced] We linked "RFC 6125" in the Introduction by using
<xref>. The citation name now displays as "[VERIFY]" instead of
"RFC 6125", which is consistent with use in the rest of the
document. If you would like to also display "RFC 6125" for
easy reference as shown below, please let us know.

Original:
    This document obsoletes RFC 6125. Changes from RFC 6125 are
    described under Appendix A.

Current:
    This document obsoletes [VERIFY]. Changes from [VERIFY] are
    described under Appendix A.

Perhaps:
    This document obsoletes RFC 6125 [VERIFY]. Changes from RFC 6125 
    [VERIFY] are described under Appendix A.
-->	


5) <!--[rfced] In the following, should "component" be plural since it's
referring to "parameters"?

Original:
   Other aspects of a service such as a specific resource (the URI 
   "path" component) or parameters (the URI "query" component) are 
   the responsibility of specific protocols or URI schemes.

Perhaps:
   Other aspects of a service such as a specific resource (the URI 
   "path" component) or parameters (the URI "query" components) are 
   the responsibility of specific protocols or URI schemes.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is output in
fixed-width font. In the txt output, there are no changes to the font,
and the quotation marks have been removed. 

In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <em> is output in
italics. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <em> appears with an
underscore before and after.

Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or if any
updates are needed.
-->    


7) <!--[rfced] RFC 2818 [HTTP-OVER-TLS] has been obsoleted by RFC 9110
[HTTP]. Please let us know if we can replace "[HTTP-OVER-TLS]"
with "[HTTP]" in the following and also remove the
"[HTTP-OVER-TLS]" entry from the References section since it is
not cited elsewhere.

In addition, please clarify "when the client uses [SVCB-FOR-HTTPS] or
[SVCB-FOR-DNS]" - what is the client using or applying the PKIX
validation rules to in these documents? Or is the intent to state 
that the PKIX validation rules are the same as described in these 
documents? Please clarify.

Original:
   For example, the PKIX validation rules for [HTTP-OVER-TLS] and
   [DNS-OVER-TLS] do not change when the client uses [SVCB-FOR-HTTPS]
   or [SVCB-FOR-DNS].

Perhaps:
   For example, the PKIX validation rules described in [HTTP] and 
   [DNS-OVER-TLS] are the same as described in [SVCB-FOR-HTTPS] and 
   [SVCB-FOR-DNS].
-->


8) <!--[rfced] We notice inconsistent use of quote marks and angle
brackets for example URIs/URLs. Are any updates needed for
consistency?

Some examples:
   <sip:voice.college.example>
   <sip:[e-mail]> 
   "www.bigcompany.example"
   www.bigcompany.example
   https://www.bigcompany.example/
-->


9) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows in order to
expand the first mention of "XMPP"? Also, what is discoverable
via DNS SRV lookups - is it the server (option A) or the IM
addresses (option B)?

Original:
   Consider an XMPP-compatible instant messaging (IM) server at the host
   messenger.example servicing IM addresses of the form
   [e-mail] and discoverable via DNS SRV lookups on the
   messenger.example domain.  

Perhaps:
A) Consider an instant messaging (IM) server that is compatible with 
   the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) at the host
   messenger.example that services IM addresses of the form
   [e-mail] and is discoverable via DNS SRV lookups 
   on the messenger.example domain. 
or

B) Consider an instant messaging (IM) server that is compatible with 
   the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) at the host
   messenger.example that services IM addresses of the form
   [e-mail], which are discoverable via DNS SRV lookups 
   on the messenger.example domain. 
-->


10) <!--[rfced] To avoid personification, can the protocol "specify" or
"require" instead of "insist" in the following context?

Original:
   Similarly, it could insist that a domain name or IP address
   taken as input to the reference identifier must be obtained
   in a secure context such as...

Perhaps:
   Similarly, it could specify that a domain name or an IP address
   taken as input to the reference identifier must be obtained
   in a secure context such as...
-->


11) <!--[rfced] Since nouns with "(s)" are read as singular, please let us
know if you prefer the text to reflect option A or B below.

Original:
   Using the combination of FQDN(s) or IP address(es), plus optionally
   an application service type, the client MUST construct its list of
   reference identifiers in accordance with the following rules:

Perhaps:
A) Using the combination of an FQDN(s) or an IP address(es), plus 
   optionally an application service type, the client MUST construct 
   its list of reference identifiers in accordance with the following 
   rules:
or

B) Using the combination of one or more FQDNs or IP addresses, plus 
   optionally an application service type, the client MUST construct 
   its list of reference identifiers in accordance with the following 
   rules:
-->


12) <!--[rfced] To be "equal" means to be of the same amount or number, so
could "exactly equal" be updated as "equal" to reduce redundancy?
Note that there are two instances. Please clarify.

Original:
   An IP-ID reference identifier MUST be exactly equal to the value
   of a iPAddress entry in subjectAltName, with no partial (e.g.,
   network-level) matching.  There is no application service type.

   A wildcard in a presented identifier can only match exactly one label
   in a reference identifier. 

Perhaps:
   An IP-ID reference identifier MUST be equal to the value of
   an iPAddress entry in subjectAltName, with no partial (e.g.,
   network-level) matching.  There is no application service 
   type.

   A wildcard in a presented identifier can only match one label
   in a reference identifier. 
-->


13) <!--[rfced] Does an IP-ID perform matches, or is an IP-ID considered
a match based on certain criteria? Please let us know if/how we
can clarify this sentence.

Original:
   An IP-ID matches based on an octet-for-octet comparison of the bytes
   of the reference identity with the bytes contained in the iPAddress
   subjectAltName.

Perhaps:
   An IP-ID is considered a match based on an octet-for-octet comparison of 
   the bytes of the reference identity with the bytes contained in the 
   iPAddress subjectAltName.
-->


14) <!--[rfced] Should this reference be to "Section 6.3" instead of
"Section 6" since "A-labels" are not specifically mentioned in
Section 6?

Original:
   More specifically, matching of internationalized domain 
   names is performed on A-labels only Section 6.

Perhaps:
   Specifically, the matching of internationalized domain 
   names is performed on A-labels only (Section 6.3).
-->


15) <!--[rfced] Section 4.4.2.2 of RFC 8446 does not mention "SNI"; is
another section intended? Note that in Section 4.2.11, "SNI" is
discussed and expanded as "Server Name Identification (SNI)", but
in Section 9.2, "Server Name Indication" is included in the list
of TLS extensions. Given this, please let us know if any updates
are needed to the section reference and expansion of "SNI" in
the text below.

Original:
   TLS Extensions such as TLS Server Name Indication (SNI), discussed 
   in [TLS], Section 4.4.2.2, and Application Layer Protocol Negotiation 
   (ALPN), discussed in [ALPN], provide a way for the application to 
   indicate the desired identifier and protocol to the server, which 
   it can then use to select the most appropriate certificate.
-->


16) <!--[rfced] References

a) FYI: There was a duplicate reference entry for RFC 3986 with
one citation name displayed as "[RFC3986]" and the other as
"[URI]". We kept the "URI" naming scheme. If you prefer to use
the RFC number instead, please let us know.

b) There is a more recent version of [US-ASCII].  Please
confirm if the reference entry should be updated to reflect "ANSI
INCITS 4-1986 (R2007)" (see http://sliderule.mraiow.com/
w/images/7/73/ASCII.pdf) instead of "ANSI X3.4-1986".

Original:
   [US-ASCII] American National Standards Institute, 
              "Coded Character Set - 7-bit American 
              Standard Code for Information 
              Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

Perhaps:
   [US-ASCII] American National Standards Institute, 
              "Coded Character Sets - 7-bit American 
              Standard Code for Information
              Interchange (7-Bit ASCII)", ANSI INCITS 
              4-1986 (R2007), June 2007.

c) The 2005 version of reference X.509 has been superseded
(see https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509). Would you like to
point to the most current version (2019) as follows or keep the
entry the same?

Current:
 [X.509]  ITU-T, "Information Technology - Open Systems
          Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and
          attribute certificate frameworks", ISO/IEC 9594-8, 
          ITU-T Recommendation X.509, August 2005.

Perhaps: 
 [X.509]  ITU-T, "Information Technology - Open Systems
          Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and 
          attribute certificate frameworks", ISO/IEC 9594-8, 
          ITU-T Recommendation X.509, October 2019.

d)  The 2008 version of reference X.690 has been superseded
(see https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690). Would you like to
point to the most current version (2021) as follows or keep the
entry the same?

Current:
  [X.690]  ITU-T, "Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
           Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
           Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
           (DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1, ITU-T Recommendation X.690,
           November 2008.

Perhaps:
  [X.690]  ITU-T, "Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
           Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
           Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
           (DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2021 (E), ITU-T Recommendation 
           X.690, February 2021.
-->


17) <!--[rfced] In the Acknowledgements, we updated "Ines Robles" to
"Maria Ines Robles". If that is not correct, please let us know.

Also, would you like to add the name of the mailing list here?

Original:
   In addition to discussion on the mailing list, the following people
   provided official reviews or especially significant feedback:
-->


18) <!-- [rfced] Acronym Expansions

a) Throughout the text, the following expansion appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know 
if/how they may be made consistent.  

  certificate authority (CA) (this doc) vs.
  certification authority (CA) (per RFCs 5280, 6125, and 9345) 

    Note: In addition, we see the following:
      - "certification authority" in Section 1.4.2
      - "certificate authority" in Section 4.1

b) FYI: We updated the text to reflect the latter form for 
consistency per RFCs 5280 and 6125:

  Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) -> 
  Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX)
-->


19) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

For example, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for
clarity.  While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-
publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is 
potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective 
term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/kc/ap


On Oct 30, 2023, at 9:15 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/30

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/rfc9525.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9525-xmldiff1.html


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9525

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9525 (draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-15)

Title            : Service Identity in TLS
Author(s)        : P. Saint-Andre, R. Salz
WG Chair(s)      : Leif Johansson, Valery Smyslov
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini