Greetings, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows: We have moved the expansion of ACME from the document title to its first use in the Abstract as generally we do not expand abbreviations within abbreviations. Original: Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Renewal Information (ARI) Extension Current: ACME Renewal Information (ARI) Extension --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to "a literal period" to make it match similar handling of the "=" character later in the paragraph and uses in the RFC Series and let us know any objections. Original: The unique identifier is constructed by concatenating the base64url-encoding [RFC4648] of the keyIdentifier field of the certificate's Authority Key Identifier (AKI) [RFC5280] extension, a literal period, and the base64url-encoding of the DER-encoded Serial Number field (without the tag and length bytes). Current: The unique identifier is constructed by concatenating the base64url-encoding [RFC4648] of the keyIdentifier field of the certificate's Authority Key Identifier (AKI) [RFC5280] extension, the period character ".", and the base64url-encoding of the DER-encoded Serial Number field (without the tag and length bytes). --> 4) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the IANA Considerations section: a) Section 7.1: In the Resource Type column of Table 2, please review if "Renewal info", "Renewal Information", or "renewalInfo" or something else should be used instead of "Renewal Info" as this is the only occurrence in the document of this form (other than Table 1, which also uses "Renewal info"). Original: Renewal Info object b) Section 7.2: FYI - we have added a citation to RFC 8126 in the description of the Registration Procedure and a corresponding entry in the Informative References section. Please let us know any concerns. c) FYI- we will communicate any nits/edits to IANA upon the completion of AUTH48. --> 5) <!--[rfced] Please review the following questions related to terminology use throughout the document. a) We see mixed marking of the following terms throughout the document. Please let us know if/how these may be made uniform: "renewalInfo" resource vs. renewalInfo resource New Order request vs. new-order request Server vs. server base64url-encoding vs. base64url encoding b) There are instances of simply RenewalInfo. Should a label follow (e.g., object, resource, etc.) for the ease of the reader? --> 6) <!--[rfced] We note the use of the <tt> element to mark text in this document. See the list of marked terms below. a) We recommend authors review the output of this element in all output formats (text, pdf, html, etc.) to ensure it appears as expected across formats. b) Please review for consistent use throughout the document (as we see some occurrences that are not marked with <tt>) and either update the edited XML file directly or let the RPC know if/how we may update . 00:87:65:43:21 0x87 69:88:5B:6B:87:46:40:41:E1:B3:7B:84:7B:A0:AE:2C:DE:01:C8:D4 AIdlQyE= aYhba4dGQEHhs3uEe6CuLN4ByNQ.AIdlQyE aYhba4dGQEHhs3uEe6CuLN4ByNQ= cron end explanationURL keyIdentifier renewalInfo replaces Retry-After start suggestedWindow = || --> 7) <!-- [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. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. 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/mf *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/04/23 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/rfc9773.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9773 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9773 (draft-ietf-acme-ari-08) Title : Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Renewal Information (ARI) Extension Author(s) : A. Gable WG Chair(s) : Yoav Nir, Tomofumi Okubo Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
