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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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=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$ ).
>> 
>> *  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$ 
>> 
>>    *  The archive itself:
>>       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.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.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-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$ 
>> 
>> 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$  
>> 
>> 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$ 
>> 
>> 
>> 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$ 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>