Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9421 <draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19> for your review

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, yes please update each of those as you have suggested.

I believe RFC 9530 [DIGEST] is done as well, but I don’t see a good reason to wait until it’s published. I think it references this specification informationally as well — has that reference also been changed? If they’re both close to complete then they should probably have each others’ RFC numbers instead of ID names in them, I think. They weren’t put in as a batch though, and this isn’t critical as they’re informational references.

 — Justin

> On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:07 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Justin and Manu.
> 
> Justin, thank you very much for the updated XML file, diff file, and replies to our questions!
> 
> Follow-up items for you:
> 
> Regarding your side question for [DIGEST]:  We have updated this entry to reflect RFC 9530 for now.  Thank you for pointing that out.  It appears that RFC 9530 might be published soon, but if not, would you like us to hold publication of this document until RFC 9530 is published?
> 
> Regarding our question 12)b) and your replies:  We see that the following four items were not addressed in the updated XML file.  Would you like us to make updates to some or all of these?  If yes, please specify which items:
> 
>>> boolean / Boolean
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> HTTP Message / HTTP message (used generally in text, e.g.,
>>>  "of an HTTP message.  Note that a given HTTP Message can contain",
>>>  "the HTTP message and", "the HTTP Message and", "from the HTTP
>>>  Message", "from the HTTP message")
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> HTTP Message Signature(s) / HTTP message signature(s) /
>>>  HTTP Message signature (in running text)
>>>  (e.g., "Applications of HTTP Message Signatures", "an application
>>>  of HTTP message signatures", "An HTTP Message Signature"
>>>  (Section 3), "an HTTP message signature" (Section 3.1),
>>>  "An HTTP Message signature MUST use")
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> string value / String value
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> The latest files are posted here:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-auth48diff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff2.html
> 
> Manu, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2024, at 5:58 AM, Manu Sporny <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:48 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Attached please find the XML file with some small edits applied with regard to the below, as well as a diff file from the provided XML.
>> 
>> This email is just noting my approval of the edits (thank you,
>> Justin!) as well as the publication of the RFC.
>> 
>> -- manu
>> 
>> -- 
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
> 
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2024, at 8:48 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi RFC Editor! 
>> 
>> Attached please find the XML file with some small edits applied with regard to the below, as well as a diff file from the provided XML.
>> 
>> There were a couple of small changes to the text that I caught on this read through that I fixed in the XML, not covered in the sections below:
>> 
>> - Section 1.3, bullet 2, "A combination" should be reverted to "Combination", as we are trying to say "the act and result of combining the fields with the same name" which is specifically described in HTTP
>> 
>> - Section 2.1, "content identifier" should be "component identifier"
>> 
>> - Section B.1.1. should be named "Example RSA Key", so I’ve updated the XML as appropriate.
>> 
>> - Example B.2 had an incorrect digest value, this has been corrected (see https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2669) — the calculated signature example that uses this value in B.2.4 had already been corrected and did not need to be changed.
>> 
>> I’ve also replied to the questions inline.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2024, at 6:54 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have removed the URI <https://manu.sporny.org/>.  We checked its availability many times (including today) and were unable to connect.  
>>>       <uri>https://manu.sporny.org/</uri> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> That’s fine with me.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and subsequent:  Because many changes were
>>> made to this document during the EDIT and AUTH states, please review
>>> all updates in this document carefully, and let us know if anything
>>> is incorrect.
>> 
>> I’ve reviewed and, apart from the edits noted above, this section is good.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, a follow-on to December 2023 email discussions regarding the
>>> use of <tt>:  Please (1) review current instances of <tt> and
>>> (2) review changes from "header" to "header field" as instructed
>>> during the AUTH state (not applied to all parameters).  Let us know
>>> if further updates are needed. -->
>>> 
>> 
>> I’ve gone through the document and have checked instances of <tt> and "header/header field" and these seem to be OK with the suggested edits.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [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, please let us know.  Also, it is
>>> acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.  
>>> 
>>> In addition, review each artwork element.  Specifically, should any
>>> artwork element be tagged as sourcecode? -->
>> 
>> I’ve gone through all of these, and they look correct. I made not changes in the attached file.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 2.2.8 and subsequent:  Please review the links
>>> that we provided when we made updates to the citations to [HTMLURL]
>>> (best viewed in the HTML and PDF output files), and let us know if
>>> there are any issues.  For example, it appears to us that these links
>>> would be stable, but please let us know if this is incorrect:
>>> 
>>> <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#application/x-www-form-urlencoded>
>>>  for Section 5
>>> <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-parsing>
>>>  for Section 5.1
>>> <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlencoded-serializing>
>>>  for Section 5.2 -->
>>> 
>> 
>> These all seem to be correct. I made no changes in the attached file.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For alignment with the IANA registry, would it be appropriate to change "Specification document(s)" to "Reference(s)" in the descriptions and the column headers throughout Section 6? 
>>> 
>>> Example from Section 6.2.1: 
>>>  Specification document(s):
>>>     Reference to the document(s) that specify the algorithm,
>>>     preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of
>>>     the document(s).  An indication of the relevant sections may also
>>>     be included but is not required.
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> I’m OK with this change. I have changed the attached file to use "Reference" (with no (s) attached) for both the description and column name to match the created IANA registry.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] The description for ed25519 is slightly different than the other entries.  Is this intentional, or perhaps the description could be updated as follows: 
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>  Edwards Curve DSA using curve edwards25519
>>> 
>>> Perhaps: 
>>>  ECDSA using curve edwards25519
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> The existing text is correct as per rfc8032, no changes should be made.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to verify this statement.  Please confirm that the reference is correct.  
>>> 
>>> Original: 
>>>  As discussed in [DIGEST], the value of the Content-Digest field is
>>>  dependent on the content encoding of the message.
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, this is discussed at length in sections 2 and 3 of DIGEST. 
>> 
>> An aside from the authors - we will need to update this reference to the digest RFC number, right?
>> 
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3.3:  As it appears that "its" actually refers
>>> to the symmetric cryptographic methods, we changed "its" to "their".
>>> If this is incorrect, please clarify what "its" refers to.
>>> 
>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
>>> The HTTP Message Signatures specification allows for both asymmetric
>>> and symmetric cryptography to be applied to HTTP messages.  By its
>>> nature, symmetric cryptographic methods require the same key material
>>> to be known by both the signer and verifier.
>>> 
>>> Currently:
>>> By their
>>> nature, symmetric cryptographic methods require the same key material
>>> to be known by both the signer and verifier. -->
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, this change is OK.
>> 
>> 
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update "other historical drafts" to "other Internet-Drafts"?  Is mention of "historical" important?  
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>  It is recommended
>>>  that developers wishing to support both this specification and other
>>>  historical drafts do so carefully and deliberately, as
>>>  incompatibilities between this specification and various versions of
>>>  other drafts could lead to unexpected problems.
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> I think "historical" is reasonable to keep as it is.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Because this document is a Proposed Standard, may we update the following text? 
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>  It is recommended that implementers first detect and validate the
>>>  Signature-Input field defined in this specification to detect that
>>>  this standard is in use and not an alternative.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>>  It is recommended that implementers first detect and validate the
>>>  Signature-Input field defined in this specification to detect that
>>>  the mechanism described in this document is in use and not an 
>>>  alternative.
>>> -->
>> 
>> Yes, this change is fine. I have updated the text as proposed. The sentence also ends with "this specification", is this OK to keep?
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>>> online Style Guide at
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>> 
>>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 
>>> 
>>> whitespace -->
>>> 
>> 
>> This is the specific term used in [HTTP] so I believe we shouldn’t vary from it.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
>>> following:
>>> 
>>> a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document.
>>> We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any objections.
>>> 
>>> "@authority" derived component (last paragraph of Section 7.2.4) /
>>>  @authority derived component (per unquoted names of derived
>>>    components in the rest of this document)
>>> 
>> 
>> I have changed this to be wrapped in <tt> tags as in other places in the document, removing the quotes.
>> 
>>> dictionary / Dictionary (per [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]; we see that
>>>  [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] uses the term "Dictionary".)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> dictionary structured field / Dictionary structured field /
>>>  Dictionary Structured Field
>>>  (per [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]; we see that [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] uses
>>>  the terms "Dictionary" and "Structured Field".)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> Note:  We also changed instances of "structured field" where used
>>>  more generally to "Structured Field", also per usage in
>>>  [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].  Please let us know any concerns.
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> ed25519 algorithm / Ed25519 algorithm (per RFC 8032)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> encoded in big-endian unsigned integers /
>>>  encoded as big-endian unsigned integers
>> 
>> This change is fine
>> 
>>> 
>>> Host field (1 instance) / Host header field
>> 
>> This change is fine. I believe I found a few other places that were not using "field" and have updated them in the attached text.
>> 
>>> 
>>> host name (2 instances in original) /
>>>  hostname (5 instances in original)
>> 
>> This change is fine
>> 
>>> 
>>> HTTP Signature Algorithm(s) (used generally in Sections 6.2
>>>  and 6.2.1) / HTTP signature algorithm(s)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> key id (Section 4.3) / keyid
>> 
>> I changed this to "key" to be consistent with other uses of identifying keys directly in examples. "keyid" on its own is used as "<tt>keyid</tt> parameter" or similar, and "key identifier" is used when speaking of the term generically.
>> 
>>> 
>>> line-folding / line folding (per RFC 9112)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> RSA PSS / RSA-PSS (per post-6000 published RFCs, including
>>>  RFC 8017)
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> signature field / Signature field
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> Unix timestamp / UNIX timestamp
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
>>> document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
>>> 
>>> Accept header (noun) (4 instances) /
>>>  Accept-Header (adj.) ("Accept-Header signature") (1 instance)
>>> 
>> 
>> This should be "Accept header field", I have changed this in the attached file.
>> 
>>> boolean / Boolean
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> 
>>> "host" header field ('"host" header field is specific to HTTP/1.1') /
>>>  Host header ('the Host header field in HTTP/1.1')
>>> 
>> 
>> This should be Host header field, I have changed this in the attached file.
>> 
>>> HTTP Message / HTTP message (used generally in text, e.g.,
>>>  "of an HTTP message.  Note that a given HTTP Message can contain",
>>>  "the HTTP message and", "the HTTP Message and", "from the HTTP
>>>  Message", "from the HTTP message")
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> HTTP Message Signature(s) / HTTP message signature(s) /
>>>  HTTP Message signature (in running text)
>>>  (e.g., "Applications of HTTP Message Signatures", "an application
>>>  of HTTP message signatures", "An HTTP Message Signature"
>>>  (Section 3), "an HTTP message signature" (Section 3.1),
>>>  "An HTTP Message signature MUST use")
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> Referer / Referrer (Appendix B.4)
>>>  We see both spellings used in post-6000 published RFCs.  Google
>>>  searches for "what is a referer header?" and "what is a referrer
>>>  header?" both seem to indicate that "Referer" is technically
>>>  correct but that it is "a misspelling of Referrer".
>>> 
>>>  Because RFC 9110 uses "Referer", it might be best to use that
>>>  form, but we defer to your choice.  Please advise.
>>> 
>> 
>> This should be "Referer header field", I have updated the text in the attached file.
>> 
>>> signature value(s) (37 instances in text) /
>>>  Signature value(s) (6 instances in text)
>>> 
>> 
>> The distinction is correct, but was unclear in the text. When used uppercase as "Signature value" it is referring specifically to the Signature field value, so I have changed those instances to "Signature field value" to be precise. I’ve made the same change to Signature-Input field value here. The lowercase instances all refer to the value of the HTTP message signature itself, not specifically the field.
>> 
>>> status code derived component / @status code /
>>>  @status derived component
>>>  (We suggest the latter, as @status is defined as "The status code
>>>  for a response" in Section 2.2.)
>>> 
>> 
>> This should be left as is.
>> 
>>> string value / String value
>>> 
>> 
>> This change is fine.
>> 
>>> The hash function (Hash) SHA-<###> / The hash SHA-<###> /
>>>  The hash function SHA-<###>
>>> 
>> 
>> This should be left as -is since <tt>Hash</tt> is defined as an algorithm variable in the associated RFC8017.
>> 
>>> c) Spacing after colons in message examples:  Should there be only
>>> one space after the colons for the following?
>>> 
>>> X-OWS-Header:   Leading and trailing whitespace.
>>> Cache-Control:    must-revalidate
>>> Example-Dict:  a=1,    b=2;x=1;y=2,   c=(a   b   c)
>>> Example-Dict:  a=1,    b=2;x=1;y=2,   c=(a   b   c)
>>> Example-Dict:  a=1, b=2;x=1;y=2, c=(a   b    c), d
>>> 
>>> For example, in post-6000 published RFCs, we see entries for
>>> "Cache-Control:" (e.g., RFCs 9126, 9205, and 9449) and
>>> "Example-Dict:" (RFC 8941) with only one space between the colon
>>> and the parameter(s) in question.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The extra spaces here are specifically for an aberrant example of what to do with non-conforming text on the wire, and they should be left in.
>> 
>>> d) Should "Digest" in this sentence be "Content-Digest"?  We ask
>>> because of "Content-Digest field defined in [DIGEST]" in Section 1.4.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> *  Requiring a specific set of header fields to be signed (e.g.,
>>>   Authorization, Digest). -->
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, this can change to "Content-Digest", I have updated the attached file.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2024, at 3:47 PM, [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/rfc9421.xml
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.pdf
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.txt
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-diff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421-xmldiff1.html
>>> 
>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>>> diff files of the XML.  
>>> 
>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.original.v2v3.xml
>>> 
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>>> only: 
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9421.form.xml
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9421
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9421 (draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-19)
>>> 
>>> Title            : HTTP Message Signatures
>>> Author(s)        : A. Backman, Ed., J. Richer, Ed., M. Sporny
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly
>>> Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini
>> 
>> 
>> <rfc9421-jricher.xml><rfc9421-jricher.diff>
>