Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9448 <draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist-13> 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] We note the profile name is expanded in Section 5. 
Would you like to expand it in the title and abstract as well,
or leave it as simply "TNAuthList"?
	
Original (Title):
TNAuthList profile of ACME Authority Token

Perhaps:
Telephone Number Authorization List (TNAuthList) Profile
of Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Authority Token


Original (Abstract):
  ...using the TNAuthList defined  by STI certificates.

Perhaps:
  ... using the Telephone Number Authorization List (TNAuthList) defined by 
  STI certificates.
-->


2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular
from "as per" onward. It doesn't parse. Is citing 
"[RFC8555]" as an adjective necessary? 

Original:
   The format of the string that represents the TNAuthList MUST be
   constructed using base64url encoding, as per [RFC8555] base64url
   encoding described in Section 5 of [RFC4648] according to the profile
   specified in JSON Web Signature in Section 2 of [RFC7515].

Perhaps:
   The string that represents the TNAuthList MUST be
   constructed using base64url encoding, as described in 
   Section 5 of [RFC4648] and as defined in Section 2
   of JSON Web Signature [RFC7515].
-->   


3) <!--[rfced] Should it be "Telephone Number Authority List" or 
"Telephone Number Authorization List"? Both forms are used within
this document.

Original (Section 3):
    the TN Authorization List

vs. 

Original (Section 5):
   The Telephone Number Authority List Authority Token (TNAuthList
   Authority Token) is a profile instance of ...
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Are these terms equivalent? If so, should Section 5.4 
be updated to use the shorter form?

Original (Section 3):
   the TNAuthList ASN.1 object

vs. 

Original (Section 5.4):
   the TN Authorization List certificate extension ASN.1 object
-->   


5) <!--[rfced] It does not appear that "Protected header" is defined in RFC 9447. 
Please review and let us know if/how this citation should be updated. Additionally,
may we make "Protected" lowercase?

Original:
   The TNAuthList Authority Token Protected header MUST comply with the
   Authority Token Protected header as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-acme-authority-token].
-->   


6) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 7231 does not contain a Section 14.8. 
Also, RFC 7231 has been obsoleted by RFC 9110; may we replace this
reference to RFC 7231 with one to RFC 9110? If so, please provide
the accurate section number.

Original:
  For example, an HTTP authorization header containing a
  valid authorization credentials as defined in [RFC7231] Section 14.8.
-->  


7) <!--[rfced] In Section 6, are the steps listed meant to occur in a specific order?
Should the list be converted to a numbered list?
-->


8) <!--[rfced] Should "JWS signature" be updated to simply "JWS" to avoid redundancy
(if expanded, "JWS signature" would read "JSON Web Signature signature"). Please review
and let us know if any updates are needed.

Original:
   JSON Web Signature (JWS, [RFC7515]) objects can include an "x5u"
   header parameter to refer to a certificate that is used to validate
   the JWS signature.

Perhaps:
   JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515] objects can include an "x5u"
   header parameter to refer to a certificate that is used to validate
   the JWS.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] In the reference below, the URL provided returns a 
"document not found" error. We have updated the URL as follows,
and the other information accordingly. Please review and let us 
know any updates.

Original:
   [ATIS-1000080]
              ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group, "Signature-based Handling
              of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) Governance
              Model and Certificate Management
              <https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/
              download.php/32237/ATIS-1000080.pdf>", July 2017.

Current:
   [ATIS-1000080]
              ATIS, "Signature-based Handling of Asserted information
              using toKENs (SHAKEN): Governance Model and Certificate
              Management", ATIS-1000080.v005, December 2022,
              <https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/
              download.php/69428/ATIS-1000080.v005.pdf>.
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Terminology

a) We see that "CA" was expanded as both "certificate authority"
(1 instance) and "certification authority". FYI, we have updated
this term to the latter. (This matches the guidance received from 
experts in the past and matches usage in RFC 9447.) Please let us 
know if you object.

Original:
   This section defines
   an optional mechanism for the Certificate Authority (CA) to host the
   certificate directly and provide a URL that the ACME client owner can
   directly reference in the "x5u" of their signed PASSporTs.

Current:
   This section defines
   an optional mechanism for the certification authority (CA) to host the
   certificate directly and provide a URL that the ACME client owner can
   directly reference in the "x5u" of their signed PASSporTs.

b) Throughout the text, "TNBlock" and "TN Block" appear to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.

c) 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.

Certificate Signing Request (CSR)
Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT)
Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using ToKENs (SHAKEN)
Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR)
Voice over IP (VoIP)
-->


11) <!--[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/ap


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/rfc9448.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448-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/rfc9448.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9448.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9448

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9448 (draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist-13)

Title            : TNAuthList profile of ACME Authority Token
Author(s)        : C. Wendt, D. Hancock, M. Barnes, J. Peterson
WG Chair(s)      : Deb Cooley, Deb Cooley, Yoav Nir
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters