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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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
>>> 
>