Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9399 <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10> 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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] FYI - While we understand RFCs 3709 and 6170 were published with
the some of the text we are questioning below, the questions are aimed at
making the text as correct as possible. We have tried to indicate when
such text appeared in RFCs 3709 and 6170. Please review carefully.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] May we update "rather" to "instead" and include a semicolon? Note
that this text appears in RFC 3709.

Original:
   Very few consumers
   actually read all terms and conditions they agree to in accepting a
   service, rather they commonly act on trust derived from previous
   experience and recognition.
   ...
   If the client is unable to support a provided logotype, the
   client MUST NOT report an error, rather the client MUST behave as
   though no logotype extension was included in the certificate.
   
Perhaps:
   Very few consumers
   actually read all terms and conditions they agree to in accepting a
   service; instead, they commonly act on trust derived from previous
   experience and recognition.
   ...
   If the client is unable to support a provided logotype, the
   client MUST NOT report an error; instead, the client MUST behave as
   though no logotype extension was included in the certificate.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] We updated this sentence as shown below (i.e., updated
"LogoTypeData" to "LogotypeData" to match usage in the rest of the
document, added "the" before "referenced LogoTypeData", and removed "the"
before "HTTP" and "HTTP with TLS). Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   Clients MUST
   support retrieval of referenced LogoTypeData with the HTTP [RFC9110]
   and the HTTP with TLS [RFC8446], or subsequent versions of these
   protocols.

Updated:
   Clients MUST
   support retrieval of the referenced LogotypeData with HTTP [RFC9110],
   HTTP with TLS [RFC8446], or subsequent versions of these
   protocols.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] We are having difficulty parsing this sentence, specifically "or
claims its issuer and community logotypes". Please review and let us know
how to update. Note that this sentence appeared in RFC 3709.

Original:
   The policies and practices
   employed by the issuer to check subject organization logotypes or
   claims its issuer and community logotypes is outside the scope of
   this document.

Perhaps:
   The policies and practices
   employed by the issuer that check subject organization logotypes or
   claims about its issuer and community logotypes are outside the scope of
   this document.
-->


6) <!--[rfced] We see "logotype" but not "logotype type" in Section 1.1. Please
review and let us know if updates are needed.

In addition, please review the use of "logotype type" throughout the document
(this phrase was also used in RFC 3709). Is this correct, or can just
"logotype" be used?
    
Original:
   "Logotype type" is
   defined in Section 1.1, and it refers to the type of entity or
   affiliation represented by the logotype, not the of binary format of
   the image or audio.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Please review "name resolution traffic associated fetching". How
may we update for clarity?

Original:
   In addition, the use of an encrypted DNS mechanism, such as DoT
   [RFC7858] or DoH [RFC9230], hides the name resolution traffic
   associated fetching remote logotype objects from third parties.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Questions about IANA Considerations

a) IANA assigned "id-mod-logotype-2022" (107) in the "SMI Security for PKIX
Module Identifier" per the following:

Original (IANA Considerations):
   For the new ASN.1 Module in Appendix A.2, IANA is requested to assign
   an object identifier (OID) for the module identifier.  The OID for
   the module should be allocated in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module
   Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0).

Link to registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0

However, the ASN.1 module in Appendix A.2 uses "id-mod-logotype", which is
already listed in the registry as value 22. We updated the module in Appendix
A.2 to use "id-mod-logotype-2022(107)". Please review carefully and let us
know if this is incorrect.

Original (Appendix A.2):
   <CODE BEGINS>
   LogotypeCertExtn
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-logotype(TBD) }

Updated:
   <CODE BEGINS>
   LogotypeCertExtn
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-logotype-2022(107) }


b) FYI: We updated the <artwork> block in the IANA Considerations section to
be three separate tables.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] [SVGT] has been updated by a new version (see
https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/). Should this
reference be updated to point to the newest version?

Note that text in the document references Sections 14.1.4 and 15.2 of [SVGT];
these section references seem to be correct for the new version.

Original:
   [SVGT]     World Wide Web Consortium, "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)
              Tiny 1.2 Specification", W3C PR-SVGTiny12-20081117, 17
              November 2008,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-SVGTiny12-20081117>.
-->	      


10) <!-- [rfced] XML formatting

a) We have updated <artwork> to <sourcecode> in the appendices and in
Sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3 (we left <artwork> in
Section 7). Please let us know if the "type" attribute should be set for
these sourcecode elements. 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 suggest a new one.
Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. 


b) Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for 
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the 
content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).


c) FYI - We used a bulleted list in the Acknowledgments section. We wanted to
avoid multiple Acknowledgements sections since the section is not
numbered. Note that this list format was also used in RFC 8504.
-->	


11) <!--[rfced] Terminology

a) If no objections, we will update instances of "MIME type" and "MIME media
type" to "media type". The "Media Types" registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/) notes:

   [RFC2046] specifies that Media Types (formerly known as MIME types) and Media
   Subtypes will be assigned and listed by the IANA.


b) Should "CA" be expanded as "certificate authority" or "certification
authority"?

Original:
   CAs MUST include a hash value for
   each referenced object, calculated on the whole object.  CAs MUST use
   the one-way hash function that is associated with the certificate
   signature to compute one hash value, and CAs MAY include other hash
   values.


c) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text.
Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is
preferred.

certificate issuer vs. Certificate Issuer
   Note: This term is lowercase is RFC 3709 and capitalized in RFC 6170. Also note
         that we will apply the decision here to "Certificate Context" and "Certificate
         Subject" as these are used in similar contexts.

end entity certificate vs. end-entity certificate
   Note: Both forms were used in RFC 3709. The open form is used in RFC 5280,
         but the hyphenated form is more common in the RFC Series.

Logotype certificate extension vs. logotype certificate extension vs. logotype extension


d) For consistency, we used lowercase for the names of logotypes as most
instances in the document were lowercase:

loyalty logotype
certificate image logotype
   Note: We also used lowercase in context of "certificate image object identifier".
community logotype
issuer organization logotype
subject organization logotype
issuer logotype 
subject logotype

Also, are "issuer logotype" and "subject logotype" correct? Or should these be
updated to "issuer organization logotype" and "subject organization logotype",
respectively?


e) Should "issuer" here be updated to "issuer organization"? Or is the current
correct?

Original:
   Implementations that simultaneously display multiple logotype types
   (subject organization, issuer, community, or other), MUST ensure that
   there is no ambiguity as to the binding between the image and the
   type of logotype that the image represents.
-->


12) <!-- [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 "black" should be updated.

In addition, please review the usage of pronouns indicating gender (e.g.,
"his", "her", "she"), and let us know if you would like to use gender-neutral
text (e.g., "its", "their") instead.  Below is the only instance we see in the
document. May we change "his" to "their"?

Original:
   This situation is comparable to a person selecting a suitable plastic
   card from his wallet.  
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/rv



On Apr 7, 2023, at 11:11 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/04/07

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/rfc9399.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes 
where text has been deleted or moved): 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399-xmldiff1.html

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9399.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9399

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9399 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10)

Title            : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Logotypes in X.509 Certificates
Author(s)        : S. Santesson, R. Housley, T. Freeman, L. Rosenthol
WG Chair(s)      : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters