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

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Approved.  

Thanks,
Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:21 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; Peterson, Jon
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; chris-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; acme-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9447 <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-
> 09> for your review
> 
> 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=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> moqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e= "
> >>   and "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> moqBuqfP-&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=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> moqBuqfP-&s=FSP3n0qEZdE4lnN1EPjigIr1blbyoY7QMUl1ZNCvZpQ&e= "
> >>   and "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__example.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=7gn0PlAmraV3zr-
> k385KhKAz9NTx0dwockj5vIsr5Sw&r=rQo6AhlF8tKhxgONBTTPp2dKudYXajoA6N
> 78vvkOkzA&m=H9shfntLUEToiZuf9zJVeNTFWR__v4jo7gIYfcjo6g_RlQcEpklq74D
> moqBuqfP-&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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb
> 08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb
> 08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZh
> vvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> GflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Z
> fvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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/iet
> >> f-announce/yb6lpIGh-
> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CC
> >> sAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-
> PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bS
> >> Gj2dWypw$
> >>
> >>    *  The archive itself:
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/
> >>
> auth48archive/__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9x
> kR
> >> 4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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/rfc944
> >>
> 7.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> Gf
> >> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSGAUv8cyg$
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>
> 7.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvC
> OjG
> >> flOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1gSddzQ$
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>
> 7.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> Gf
> >> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSG1VFJRqA$
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >>
> 7.txt__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOj
> Gf
> >> lOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQISexhQ$
> >>
> >> Diff file of the text:
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >> 7-
> diff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Zf
> >> vCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHex2QhVw$
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >> 7-
> rfcdiff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR
> >> 4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-RY-PWy14m14Ao11d1hY5bSHQGMBVAQ$  (side
> by
> >> side)
> >>
> >> Diff of the XML:
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc944
> >> 7-
> xmldiff1.html__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xk
> >> R4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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/rfc944
> >>
> 7.original.v2v3.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QL
> >> J9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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/rfc944
> >>
> 7.form.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4Z
> fv
> >> COjGflOJJjW2zx4mNN-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!57eJm6xYZhvvvv3CCsAFzcQ8b3OIuakb08QLJ9xkR4ZfvCOjGflOJ
> Jj
> >> W2zx4mNN-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
> >