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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

The files are available 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.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447.html

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)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Aug 22, 2023, at 5:58 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi David, 
> 
> Thank you for your reply. 
> 
>> The text file still shows my company affiliation as "Comcast". But I assume that's a glitch, since the pdf and html files show the correct affiliation. 
> 
> Your company affiliation appears as “Somos” on our end. We suggest refreshing the page to show the most recent updates.
> 
>> So I approve the document for publication.
> 
> We have noted your approval:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:37 PM, David Hancock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> The text file still shows my company affiliation as "Comcast". But I assume that's a glitch, since the pdf and html files show the correct affiliation. So I approve the document for publication.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:13 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Chris and David,
>> 
>> Thank you for your replies. We have noted Chris’s approval on the AUTH48 status page and updated David’s company affiliation accordingly.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9447-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
>> 
>> We will await approvals from David and John before continuing with 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 21, 2023, at 12:27 PM, David Hancock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please update my company affiliation from Comcast to Somos Inc. in two places...
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> On title page, authors list:
>>> OLD:
>>>  D. Hancock
>>>  Comcast
>>>  C. Wendt
>>>  Somos
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>>  D. Hancock
>>>  C.Wendt
>>>  Somos
>>> 
>>> On the last page, list of Authors' Addresses
>>> OLD:
>>>   David Hancock
>>>   Comcast
>>>   Email: [e-mail]
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>>   David Hancock
>>>   Somos
>>>   Email: [e-mail]
>>> ---
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 12:29 PM Chris Wendt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Everything looks good, i approve.
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 21, 2023, at 1:27 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi John, David, and Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await you reviews and approvals before continuing with the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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 14, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Roman,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9447
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2023, at 9:13 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>