Greetings, This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761 The AUTH48 FAQs are available at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48 We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 11, 2025, at 12:12 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761.html and other formats), please > resolve the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, we have updated the title and the first > sentence of the Abstract from the combined abbreviation > "(D)TLS" to "TLS and DTLS". Afterwards, "D(TLS)" will be used in the > document. > > Original: > This memo extends the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) > specification to allow manufacturers to define (D)TLS profile > parameters. > > Current: > This memo extends the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) > specification to allow manufacturers to define TLS and DTLS profile > parameters > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have rephrased "non-malware" in the text below. Please let > us > know if you refer otherwise. > > Original: > Malware often reuses certain libraries, and there are notable > differences in how malware uses encryption compared to non-malware. > > Current: > Malware often reuses certain libraries, and there are notable > differences in how malware uses encryption compared to software > that is not malware. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify the following sentence. We note that DDR is > defined in RFC 9462, and DNR is defined in RFC 9463. We also note that > RFC 9463 is cited for DNR later in this document. May we update the text > as shown below? > > Original: > * Using an alternative DNS server (via encrypted transport) to avoid > detection by malware DNS filtering services [malware-doh]. > Specifically, malware may not use the Do53 or encrypted DNS server > provided by the local network (DHCP, DNR [RFC9462] or DDR > [RFC9462]). > > Perhaps: > > * Using an alternative DNS server (via encrypted transport) to avoid > detection by malware DNS filtering services [malware-doh]. Specifically, > malware may not use the Do53 or encrypted DNS server provided by the > local network (DHCP, Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR) > [RFC9463], or Discovery of Designated Resolvers (DDR) [RFC9462]). > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] We find that the phrase "layers 3 and 4 Access Control Lists" > may > be difficult for readers to interpret. May we rephrase it as below > for readability? > > Original: > This is superior to the layers 3 and 4 Access Control Lists > (ACLs) of Manufacturer Usage Description Specification (MUD) > [RFC8520] which are not suitable for broad communication patterns. > > Perhaps: > This is superior to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) of > Layers 3 and 4 in "Manufacturer Usage Description Specification" > [RFC8520], which are not suitable for broad communication patterns. > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] How may this sentence be rephrased for readability? > Specifically: Does "to identify the IoT manufacturer no longer supports > the device" mean > (A) "to indicate that the IoT manufacturer no longer supports the device" or > (B) "to identify which IoT manufacturer no longer supports the device" or > otherwise? > > Original: > However, if the IoT device has reached end-of-life and the IoT > manufacturer will not issue a firmware or software update to the IoT > device or will not update the MUD file, the "is-supported" attribute > defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC8520] can be used by the MUD manager to > identify the IoT manufacturer no longer supports the device. > > Perhaps (if option (A)): > However, if the IoT device has reached end-of-life (EOL) and the IoT > manufacturer will not issue a firmware or software update to the IoT > device or will not update the MUD file, the "is-supported" attribute > defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC8520] can be used by the MUD manager to > indicate that the IoT manufacturer no longer supports the device. > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] May we update this sentence as follows? The "and in TLS > to signal" part is unclear. > > Original: > For example, a TLS client implementation can support different sets of > algorithms for certificates and in TLS to signal the capabilities > in "signature_algorithms_cert" and "signature_algorithms" > extensions. > > Perhaps: > For example, a TLS client implementation can support different sets > of algorithms for certificates, and it can signal the capabilities in > the "signature_algorithms_cert" and "signature_algorithms" extensions. > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG modules have been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] Regarding the contact statement in the ietf-acl-tls > and ietf-mud-tls YANG modules, would you like to add Dan Wing > and Blake Anderson, i.e., to list all authors of this document? > (FYI, Tiru, your name has been updated to match your preference > in past RFCs. Just let us know if updates are needed.) > > Current: > Author: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K > kond...@gmail.com > --> > > > 10) <!-- [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/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > --> > > > 11) <!--[rfced] Is the expansion of TCAM accurate here? > (It was plural in the original; it is not plural currently.) > > Original: > While ACL technology is traditionally associated with fixed-length > bit matching in hardware implementations, such as those found in > TCAMs, the use of ACLs in software, ... > > Current: > While ACL technology is traditionally associated with fixed-length > bit matching in hardware implementations, such as those found in > Ternary Content-Addressable Memory (TCAM), the use of ACLs in > software, ... > --> > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] May this sentence be updated as follows? > Should the "messages" be singular to match the first stage? > > Original: > ACL matching would be performed in two stages: > first, by filtering clear-text TLS handshake message and second, by > filtering after decrypting the TLS handshake messages. > > Perhaps (if singular): > ACL matching would be performed in two stages: > first, by filtering the clear-text TLS handshake message; second, by > filtering after decrypting the TLS handshake message. > > Or (if singular, and putting the steps of the second stage in order): > ACL matching would be performed in two stages: > first, by filtering the clear-text TLS handshake message; second, by > decrypting the TLS handshake message then filtering it once more. > --> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Because of your note that the template in rfc8407bis > has been used, we will update this paragraph (which appears in Sections > 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) to match Section 3.7.1 of rfc8407bis as follows. > Please let us know if that is not what you intended. > > Original: > This section follows the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of > [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. > > The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data > can possibly be accessed via network management protocols such as > NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These network management > protocols are required to use a secure transport layer and mutual > authentication, e.g., SSH [RFC6242] without the "none" authentication > option, Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446] with mutual X.509 > authentication, and HTTPS with HTTP authentication (Section 11 of > [RFC9110]). > > The Network Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means > to restrict access for particular users to a pre-configured subset of > all available protocol operations and content. > > Perhaps (following draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22): > This section follows the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of > [YANG-GUIDELINES]. > > The "iana-tls-profile" YANG module defines a data model that is > designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as > NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have to > use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and > QUIC [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication. > > The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] > provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or > RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or > RESTCONF protocol operations and content. > --> > > > 14) <!--[rfced] Table 3: For psk-key-exchange-mode, would you like the > description to start with a capital letter, to be consistent with the > other descriptions? If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/acl-tls) accordingly. > > Current: pre-shared key exchange mode > > Perhaps: Pre-shared key exchange mode > --> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the questions below regarding references in > this > document. > > a) Re: [X690], we added the URL > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690-200207-S/en. However, it has been > superseded by this version that was released in February 2021: > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690-202102-I/en. May we update this reference > to use the most current version? > > Current: > [X690] ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules: > Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical > Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules > (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, July 2002, > <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690-200207-S/en>. > > > b) We note that there are no citations for [RFC8484] in this document. Please > let us know if there is a specific place in the document where we can cite > this RFC. Otherwise, we will remove this from the Informative References. > > c) Re: [X501], this reference has been superseded > by the 2019 version of X.501 - available here: > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.501-201910-I/en. May we update this reference > to use the most current version? FYI, the URL for the > 1993 version of this reference has been included in the reference. > > Current: > [X501] "Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - > The Directory: Models", ITU-T Recommendation X.501, > November 1993, > <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.501-199311-S/en>. > > d) Re: [CRYPTO-VULNERABILITY], the information provided does not > match the information provided at the URL (which directs to an NSA > Cybersecurity Advisory with the title "Patch Critical Cryptographic > Vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Clients and Servers" with a date of 14 > January 2020). > > Upon further research, we found the following URL: > https://securityboulevard.com/2020/01/exploiting-the-windows-cryptoapi-vulnerability/. > The > title, date, and author at this URL match the original reference information > provided. Is that the correct URL for this reference? Or should we update > this reference to match the information provided at the original URL, > i.e., the NSA Cybersecurity Advisory? > > Original: > [cryto-vulnerability] > Perez, B., "Exploiting the Windows CryptoAPI > > Vulnerability", January 2020, > <https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jan/14/2002234275/-1/-1/0/ > CSA-WINDOWS-10-CRYPT-LIB-20190114.PDF>. > > e) FYI, we removed mention of "Cisco" from this reference, > as there is no mention of "Cisco" at this archived URL. > Please let us know if other changes are needed. > > Original: > [slowloris] > Cisco, "Slowloris HTTP DoS", > <https://web.archive.org/web/20150315054838/ > http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/>. > > Current: > [SLOWLORIS] > "Slowloris HTTP DoS", Wayback Machine archive, > <https://web.archive.org/web/20150315054838/ > http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/>. > --> > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following terms and let us know how we > should > update. If there are no objections, we will use the form on the right for > consistency. > > Cipher Suite vs. cipher suite > [1 instance of "Cipher suite" at the start of a description > will remain as is.] > > certificate message (1 instance) vs. Certificate message > There is one instance of "certificate message" (lowercase 'c') in > "server certificate message" in Section 1. Should it be changed to > "Certificate message"? Elsewhere it seems this document is using > the term as defined in RFC 8446. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mc/ar > > > On Mar 10, 2025, at 10:10 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/03/10 > > 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 > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9761.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9761 (draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-18) > > Title : Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) for TLS and DTLS > Profiles for Internet of Things (IoT) Devices > Author(s) : T. Reddy.K, D. Wing, B. Anderson > WG Chair(s) : Henk Birkholz, Joe Clarke > Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
