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

[Chris Wendt <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>