Q,
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:
The short title that appears in the running header of the pdf output has been
updated to use double quotes around ".onion" to match the use in the full title.
Original:
ACME for .onion
Current:
ACME for ".onion"
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Q - currently our tooling does not support the request to
remove the period from following your first name. Please see
https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1204. We have
commented on this issue to raise awareness that you document is
now in AUTH48 and publication is nearing.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
4) <!--[rfced] Please review our edits to the following text to ensure we
have maintained your intent.
Original:
The ACME server SHOULD follow redirects; note that these MAY be
redirects to non-".onion" services, and the server SHOULD honour
these.
Current:
The ACME server SHOULD follow redirects. Note that these MAY be
redirects to services that are not ".onion" and that the server
SHOULD honor these.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Please review our updates to this text carefully and let
us know any objections.
Original:
An "onion-csr-01" MUST NOT be used to issue certificates for non
".onion" Special-Use Domain Names.
Current:
An "onion-csr-01" challenge MUST NOT be used to issue certificates for
Special-Use Domain Names that are not ".onion".
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Please note that sourcecode elements in this document
exceed our character limit (see
https://authors.ietf.org/en/drafting-in-plaintext for the 69
character limit on sourcecode elements). Please review
throughout the document and let us know how these may be changed
(or feel free to update/replace in the edited XML file yourself
if this is more convenient).-->
7) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have updated to use "flags" (plural)
to match the use in Section 4.1.1 of RFC 8659. Please let us
know any objections.
Original:
The contents of "flag", "tag", and "value" are as per Section 4.1.1
of [RFC8659].
Current:
The contents of "flags", "tag", and "value" are as per Section 4.1.1
of [RFC8659].
-->
8) <!--[rfced] In the following instances, please review the use of the
BCP 14 keyword with the surrounding text (i.e., also and always
specifically).
Original:
A hidden service operator MAY also not wish to publish a CAA record
set in its service descriptor to avoid revealing information about the
service operator.
Perhaps:
Also, a hidden service operator MAY not wish to publish a CAA record
set in its service descriptor to avoid revealing information about the
service operator.
Original:
In any case, the server always MAY fetch the record set from the
service descriptor.
Perhaps:
In any case, the server MAY fetch the record set from the
service descriptor.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] We have deleted the "it" before the comma in this
sentence. Please let us know if some other rephrase was
intended.
Original:
If an ACME server does not support fetching a service's CAA record
set from its service descriptor it, and the ACME client does not
provide an "onionCAA" object in its finalize request the ACME server
MUST respond with an "onionCAARequired" error to indicate this.
Current:
If an ACME server does not support fetching a service's CAA record
set from its service descriptor, and the ACME client does not
provide an "onionCAA" object in its finalize request, the ACME server
MUST respond with an "onionCAARequired" error to indicate this.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] Please note that any changes affecting IANA registries
will be communicated to IANA by the RPC once AUTH48 completes.-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we believe Section 9.7.8 should actually
read 9.8.4 in the following. Please review and confirm our
update.
Original:
Per this document, one new entry has been added to the "ACME
Validation Methods" registry defined in Section 9.7.8 of [RFC8555]...
Current:
Per this document, one new entry has been added to the "ACME
Validation Methods" registry defined in Section 9.7.4 of [RFC8555]...
-->
12) <!-- [rfced] We believe "ACME Directory Metadata Fields" registry is
defined in Section 9.7.6 of [RFC8555], not Section 9.7.8. Please
confirm our update.
-->
13) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to this text to expand MAC and
avoid using an abbreviation as a verb (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#abbrev_as_verb). If
this does not correctly capture your intent, please let us know
how we may rephrase.
Original:
The second layer descriptor is signed, encrypted and MACed in a way
that only a party with access to the secret key of the hidden service
could manipulate what is published there.
Current:
The second layer descriptor is signed, encrypted, and encoded using
Message Authentication Code (MAC) in a way that only a party with
access to the secret key of the hidden service could manipulate
what is published there.
-->
14) <!--[rfced] These sentences seem redundant. Please review.
Original:
Tor directory servers are inherently untrusted entities, and as such
there is no difference in the security model for accepting CAA
records directly from the ACME client or fetching them over Tor.
There is no difference in the security model between accepting CAA
records directly from the ACME client and fetching them over Tor; the
CAA records are verified using the same hidden service key in either
case.
-->
15) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we have changed the URL of the
[spoiled-onions] reference to point use the DOI rather than the
original URL, which took the reader to a preview page that they
couldn't back out of. Please review.
Original:
https://rdcu.be/d1ZRp
Current:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08506-7_16
-->
16) <!-- [rfced] Please review. We found an open-access version of
[spoiled-onions] on arXiv. The information appears to match the
current reference; however, some author names are missing. Would you
prefer to use this open-access version of this reference? -->
17) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions related to terminology
used throughout the document:
a) We assume ".onion" is pronounced as "dot onion" and have thus left
instances of "a ".onion" as they were. If this is incorrect, please
let us know and we can update to "an ".onion"" as necessary.
b) We see the following similar terms used. Please let us know if these should
be made uniform or if they s
hould remain distinct terms:
first layer hidden service descriptor vs. first layer descriptor
second layer hidden service descriptor vs. second layer descriptor
Hidden Service vs. hidden service
".onion" service vs. "Onion Services"
http-01 vs. "http-01"
tls-alpn-01 vs. "tls-alpn-01"
c) We note that <tt> tags were used to enclose the following terms in
this document. Please review use for consistency as we note they were
not used on every occurrence. Please also review the output of the
<tt> tags in all formats (html, pdf, text) to ensure satisfaction.
<tt>applicantSigningNonce</tt>
<tt>auth-client</tt>
<tt>caSigningNonce</tt>
<tt>"onion-csr-01".</tt>
-->
18) <!--[rfced] Please review the following questions/comments regarding
abbreviation use in this document:
a) Please note we have expanded these abbreviations as follows (per
the reference in parentheses when applicable). Please review and let
us know any objections/corrections:
CSR - Certificate Signing Request (RFC 8555)
PEM - Privacy Enhanced Mail (RFC 4648)
TLD - Top-Level Domain
ECH - Encrypted ClientHello (draft-ietf-tls-esni-24)
b) Please note that CSR (the abbreviation at least) is not used in
either Appendix B.2.b of [cabf-br] or [RFC2986]. Please review the
citations in this document and let us know if any updates are
necessary/desirable.
-->
19) <!--[rfced] We note that the original xml file submitted used <eref>
to point to specific sections in the [tor-spec]. Please review
if these links should remain with the following in mind:
a) These links make a difference in the output formats as follows:
html (where the section names are linked):
To this end, an additional field in the challenge object is defined to allow
the ACME server to advertise th
e Ed25519 public key it will use (as per the "Authentication during the
introduction phase" section of [tor-
spec]) to authenticate itself when retrieving the hidden service descriptor.
txt (where the link appears in-line):
To this end, a new field is added to the second layer hidden service
descriptor, as defined in the "Second layer plaintext format"
(https://spec.torproject.org/rend-spec/hsdesc-encrypt.html#second-
layer-plaintext) section of [tor-spec] with the following format
(defined using the notation from the "netdoc document meta-format"
(https://spec.torproject.org/dir-spec/netdoc.html) section of
[tor-spec]):
b) These links may become stale quickly as [tor-spec] mentions an
upcoming reorganization and that it is a living document.
An alternative would be to remove the links but include the section
names in the text itself (i.e., not use <eref>) and allow the reader
to simply navigate to the section from the main [tor-spec] link. This
would allow the html and text versions to be the same.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
-->
20) <!-- [rfced] 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://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
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.
-->
21) <!-- [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 2025/06/02
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/rfc9799.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9799
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9799 (draft-ietf-acme-onion-07)
Title : Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Extensions for ".onion" Special-Use Domain Names
Author(s) : Q. Misell
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
