Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We have added an informative reference to erratum 3206.
Please let us know if you have any concerns.
Original:
* Integration of RFC 6487 Errata 3205.
Current:
* Integration of Errata 3205 [Err3205].
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 9286 defines "fileList" rather than "FileList". We
have updated the document accordingly. Please let us know any corrections.
Original:
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), a well-formed
Manifest FileList contains exactly one entry for its associated CRL, ...
Original:
* listed in the issuing CA's current Manifest FileList and has
matching hash (see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286]).
Original:
By way of the hash in the manifest's FileList this
provides a cryptographic guarantee on the Certification Authority's ...
In addition, note that the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently throughout the document. Please review these occurrences
and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
Manifest FileList vs manifest's FileList (note that we will lowercase FileList
as noted above.)
Manifest vs manifest (6487 and 9286 seem to use "manifest" except where
it's part of a specific name.)
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] We are not sure what "without recourse" means here. Does
it mean "without access to"? Please clarify.
Original:
In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without
recourse to the current Manifest of the certificate's issuer.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text to use superscript (see
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#sup> for more information).
Please let us know if this is incorrect or not desired.
Original:
2^159-1
The HTML and PDF will display 159-1 as an exponent.
The text will display as follows:
2^(159-1)
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows?
Original:
This document has no additional operational considerations compared
to Section 9 of [RFC6487].
Perhaps:
This document has no additional operational considerations beyond those
described in Section 9 of [RFC6487].
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] This sentence uses "this" twice in the second sentence and
they seemingly refer to different things. What does each instance of
"this" refer to? Please review.
Note that the first sentence is provided for context.
Original:
This document explicates that, in the RPKI, the CRL listed on the
certificate issuer's current Manifest is the one relevant and
appropriate for determining the revocation status of a resource
certificate. By way of the hash in the manifest's FileList this
provides a cryptographic guarantee on the Certification Authority's
intent that this is the most recent CRL and removes possible replay
vectors.
-->
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
On Jul 3, 2025, at 3:24 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/07/03
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/rfc9829.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9829
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9829 (draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-05)
Title : Handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number Extensions
Author(s) : J. Snijders, B. Maddison, T. Buehler
WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Luigi Iannone
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
