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


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 "example.com"
   and "example.net".

Perhaps:
   For example, imagine a case where a Token Authority for DNS names knows
   that a client is eligible to receive certificates for "example.com"
   and "example.net".


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...
-->   


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.
-->   


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"} }
-->


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.
-->


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] . 
-->


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.
-->   


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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
-->


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.
-->


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)
-->


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. 

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still 
be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

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://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/rfc9447.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-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/rfc9447.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447

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