Hi Mike, Thank you for confirming that the sourcecode types are correct and for pointing out the sentence in Section 1.1 that needed a further update (we caught this and removed the extraneous “and”; the change can be viewed here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9763-auth48diff.html).
We now await further changes (if needed) and approval of the document from each author. We also await approval from the AD for the non-editorial changes in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5, and 6 and Appendix A. Thanks! RFC Editor/kc > On Apr 3, 2025, at 5:26 PM, mjje...@cyber.nsa.gov wrote: > > the update to sourcecode is correct (i.e. produces the correct output). the > type for all sourcecode should be “asn.1”. > > Thanks! > > Mike > > > Get Outlook for iOS > From: Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:19:00 PM > To: Michael Jenkins (GOV) <mjje...@cyber.nsa.gov>; r...@cert.org > <r...@cert.org>; Rebecca Guthrie (GOV) <rmgu...@uwe.nsa.gov>; Alison Becker > (GOV) <aebe...@uwe.nsa.gov> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; lamps-...@ietf.org > <lamps-...@ietf.org>; lamps-cha...@ietf.org <lamps-cha...@ietf.org>; > tim.holleb...@digicert.com <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: [AD] Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9763 > <draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-06> for your review > > Dear Michael and *Roman (AD), > > Thank you for your reply and for providing the updated XML file. Our files > have been updated accordingly. We have one clarification. > > 1) We don’t believe a response was provided to the following question; please > confirm if everything is correct or if any changes are needed. > > > <!-- [rfced] We updated artwork to sourcecode in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 and > > in > > Appendix A. Please confirm that this is correct. > > > > In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any > > sourcecode > > element should be set and/or has been set correctly. > > > > The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > > > > <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120548920900%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D85lnymqTrdjcu4RvZjEE11b2uTTItIpsP3C5qCBYwM%3D&reserved=0>. > > If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to > > suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable > > to leave the "type" attribute not set. > > --> > > *Roman, please review the updates made to Sections 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5, and > 6 and Appendix A, as well as the changes to the terms throughout the text > ('validation' for certificates and 'verification' for signatures), and let us > know if you approve. The updates can be viewed in this file: > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120548939594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eP3%2BAoztlhDFGmi6x05Ts%2FQrfF7mQ08N4xz%2BBL5sLsY%3D&reserved=0. > > Note: The authors have included detailed notes in the XML file if you would > like to see the rationale for the changes (search on ‘rmg’ and ‘mjj’ to find > the comments). > > —Files— > The updated XML file is here: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120548954839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGYw3vy%2BiowoR3SFbDcaoODYjecEGIkw3kca8wg7FVg%3D&reserved=0 > > The updated output files are here: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120548971990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lvWoaMnt0fovXtuQvjPUmEhphjDNiJwmqA2OCkVjrzg%3D&reserved=0 > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120548988136%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EcTmMEYI11SIo8kQmEC1spN67AI%2BuCmqpaMFyPuU3YM%3D&reserved=0 > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549000662%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ygwt9i4YzsN%2BQsXMvZR6A4SjF0iYEL84qikFuGSAdqU%3D&reserved=0 > > These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549012633%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O6b16fZGAZYaaPxXQayHXO2MpRD1POBlQj7cADYpDEU%3D&reserved=0 > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549024197%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KiPJTRXVWcYahd3uLmXtAk%2BuQxfN7tma2%2BsN4iWHMRU%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > These diff files show all changes made to date: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549035862%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BjC8w576S0lGYtmROkTr9KOnEnzdQS%2FVvuORbCZ8rus%3D&reserved=0 > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549047389%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q%2F2lDfAA5OUZh9Qja8yhECHY1GxZZF0aL6yxpqQT244%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure > satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. > > Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the > document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author and > the AD prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9763&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549058978%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tgtmMRUZPHeQWVSJZCRZlIUS0wERHGMTq3YdY0iINLg%3D&reserved=0 > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/kc > > > > On Apr 3, 2025, at 12:09 PM, mjjenki--- via auth48archive > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > Please find attached the authors final edits to RFC-to-be 9763 as file > > <rfc9763_bgj.xml>. > > > > Most RFC Editor suggested changes were made. For Q12, note that the term > > "traditional" with reference to pre-PQC algorithms is a term-of-art; see > > draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology. > > > > Nearly all edits were editorial. There are two substantial ones that we > > want to bring to your attention (these are also fully described in situ): > > > > * In Section 4.1, "The RelatedCertificate Extension", a substantive change > > was made that had been raised and resolved on the LAMPS (spasm) mail-list > > after WGLC. The change agreed was not security-relevant and was in fact a > > reversion to an earlier version of the same document. > > > > * Section 6, "CA Organization Considerations", has been extensively edited > > for clarity. Significantly, we found it difficult to tell that the first > > paragraph discussed to the CSR attribute and the second paragraph discussed > > the certificate extension. We feel that the new text is equivalent to the > > old text but much clearer. > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions regarding changes made. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 22:19 > > To: Alison Becker (GOV) <aebe...@uwe.nsa.gov>; Rebecca Guthrie (GOV) > > <rmgu...@uwe.nsa.gov>; Michael Jenkins (GOV) <mjje...@cyber.nsa.gov> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; lamps-...@ietf.org; lamps-cha...@ietf.org; > > tim.holleb...@digicert.com; r...@cert.org; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9763 > > <draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-06> 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] May we update the short title that spans the header of the > > PDF file to more closely match the document title as shown below? > > > > Original: > > Related Certificates > > > > Perhaps: > > Related Certificates for Protocol Authentications > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > > title) for use on > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549070863%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fx9LZ%2B3QJ5srV0UeINRvgDdd0XKx7wreLLUKtZ4OatQ%3D&reserved=0. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "different to" in the following sentence. Is > > the intended meaning perhaps "different than"? > > > > Original: > > If the request for (new) Cert B is to a CA organization > > different to the CA organization that issued the certificate > > (existing) Cert A referenced in the CSR... > > > > Perhaps: > > If the request for (new) Cert B is to a CA organization that is > > different than the CA organization that issued the certificate > > (existing) Cert A referenced in the CSR... > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have added a citation for the NIST SP mentioned in > > this sentence, with a corresponding reference entry in the informative > > reference section. > > > > Original: > > If the related certificate is a key establishment certificate (e.g., > > using RSA > > key transport or ECC key agreement), use the private key to sign one time > > for > > POP (as detailed in NIST SP 800-57 Part 1 Rev 5 Section 8.1.5.1.1.2) > > > > Current: > > If the related certificate is a key establishment certificate (e.g., > > using RSA > > key transport or Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) key agreement), use the > > private key to sign one time for proof of possession (POP) (as detailed in > > Section 8.1.5.1.1.2 of [NIST-SP-800-57]). > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Is "mechanism" intended to be singular (perhaps A) or plural > > (perhaps B) in this sentence? And may we rephrase "have to be to the > > satisfaction of the verifier" to "have to be satisfactory to the verifier"? > > > > Original: > > The means and strength of mechanism for authentication have > > to be to the satisfaction of the verifier. > > > > Perhaps A: > > The means and strength of an authentication mechanism have > > to be to satisfactory to the verifier. > > > > Perhaps B: > > The means and strength of mechanisms for authentication have > > to be satisfactory to the verifier. > > --> > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Can "and to assess that it got what it needed" be rephrased > > for clarity? Please let us know if the suggested text is agreeable or if > > you prefer otherwise. > > > > Original: > > For more promiscuous online protocols, like TLS, the ability > > for the verifier to express what is possible and what is > > preferred - and to assess that it got what it needed - > > is important. > > > > Perhaps: > > For more promiscuous online protocols, like TLS, the ability > > for the verifier to express what is possible and what is > > preferred - and to assess that its requirements were met - > > is important. > > --> > > > > > > 7) <!--[rfced] We updated "it may be advisable" to "it is advisable". If > > that is incorrect, please let us know. > > > > Original: > > CAs should be aware that retrieval of existing certificates may be > > subject to observation; if this is a concern, it may be advisable to > > use the dataURI option described in Section 3.1. > > > > Current: > > CAs should be aware that retrieval of existing certificates may be > > subject to observation; if this is a concern, it is advisable to > > use the dataURI option described in Section 3.1. > > --> > > > > > > 8) <!--[rfced] We have included a clarification about the IANA text below. > > In addition to responding to that question, please review all of the > > IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any further updates are > > needed. > > > > a) FYI: For all three registrations, we replaced the OIDs enclosed in > > <artwork> with entries that exactly match the IANA registries at > > <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsmi-numbers%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549082728%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tMh%2F6wVh7khZ7RBFJO7GjE9AAAypW8J7tiJGIzAeK0o%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > One example > > > > Original: > > > > id-pe-relatedCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe TBD2 } > > > > Current: > > > > | Decimal | Description | References | > > +=========+===================+============+ > > | 36 | id-pe-relatedCert | RFC 9763 | > > --> > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] We note that the "IssuerAndSerialNumber type" is mentioned > > in [RFC5912] and [RFC6268, and the "BinaryTime type" is mentioned in > > [RFC6019]. Considering that, may we update the following sentence for > > clarity as shown below? > > > > Original: > > It pulls definitions from modules defined in [RFC5912], and [RFC6268], > > and [RFC6019] for the IssuerAndSerialNumber type, and BinaryTime type, > > respectively. > > > > Perhaps: > > It pulls definitions from modules defined in [RFC5912] and [RFC6268] > > for the IssuerAndSerialNumber type and in [RFC6019] for the > > BinaryTime type. > > --> > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] We updated artwork to sourcecode in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 > > and in Appendix A. Please confirm that this is correct. > > > > In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any sourcecode > > element should be set and/or has been set correctly. > > > > The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > > <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549094771%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vXC26sIIBmqTeobH25znF2UQ0rUwylXB857hxnWKwRs%3D&reserved=0>. > > If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to > > suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to > > leave the "type" attribute not set. > > --> > > > > > > 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. > > > > Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) > > Certificate Signing Request (CSR) > > Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) > > extended key usage (EKU) > > Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) > > key usage (KU) > > proof of possession (POP) (per NIST-SP-800-57) > > post-quantum (PQ) > > post-quantum cryptography (PQC) > > --> > > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > > online Style Guide > > <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549107528%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JvlHYA7cJ5PcFzZJmfcfyCvjOyFr31lyVhw1%2BfqvAYY%3D&reserved=0> > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > > > For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated. > > > > In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for > > clarity. > > While the NIST website > > <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20250214092458%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.nist.gov%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549119576%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sYWkD%2BNdv7%2FSFgcOmVI2esLDSYS1jDINWUC%2Boi%2BYD2E%3D&reserved=0 > > nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> > > indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. > > "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. > > --> > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/kc > > > > > > > > On Mar 28, 2025, at 7:16 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/03/28 > > > > 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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549131456%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P1aj6LcC9JRm8M1Grjy%2FANrfAekAkn1W%2BGoU8rOD9tY%3D&reserved=0). > > > > 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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549143096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cqhzfkBdeFUGDGwntWPu7U6bAVb3HDybtqYrKvP6%2Fdc%3D&reserved=0). > > > > * 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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549154716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tn6kb%2FdTynXQbbGuCzEmkKwUO6v9xk%2B4GIVkLayhx%2BE%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > * 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 > > > > * mailto: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). > > > > * mailto: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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549166572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xW4juPMaB5HPrlWyqYut5WPYPKARaFBKnlAnXuZ52Ls%3D&reserved=0 > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549178414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Pyd32uJ7AsT5SoyFDOq6SnQOFHwTMJj%2Bu8Uk%2BHBuZqQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > * 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, > > mailto: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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549190232%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uzBPzWX%2FYh%2F4dcMPRT%2Baru8A8Fv%2FuYUiPDYQoKoFZ0U%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549202184%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YFjA4seeDOV1YIaj7zNqyw1VTAMVWvBaRdODgaq2Ivg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549214010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JplNi6%2FyREsos0Cj9GIpVrwQdi%2FGj2oHNCzO8oA7BS0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549225912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RFwjWg7grtK7IgLhMtKpUO75h34JrSpyaAVVR%2FXC%2BRU%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549237746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGYRgRQ4rG0Jwo2dB8Y7ncqd2f4%2FHdO53NDpl1IoaY0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549249755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z3dAkPSUhfLATjNAIZkla1Y5cWhi3dYczUiowZXSr4I%3D&reserved=0 > > (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9763-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549262464%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wGmj1VzLJlJP0AwIkQx%2BDQMhIa80%2FNkVwWw6NHXoT3I%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9763&data=05%7C02%7Cmjjenki%40cyber.nsa.gov%7Cf3d4236593b640717cc408dd72f528f3%7Cd61e9a6ffc164f848a3e6eeff33e136b%7C0%7C0%7C638793120549275500%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=B8RINLnsuSUlq3coCkHbrKYbYPQ4NfdbD8pQT49MRh8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9763 (draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-06) > > > > Title : Related Certificates for Use in Multiple Authentications > > within a Protocol > > Author(s) : A. Becker, R. Guthrie, M. Jenkins > > WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek > > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > > > > > > -- > > auth48archive mailing list -- mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org > > > > <rfc9763_bgj.xml>-- > > auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
