On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 03:27:28PM -0700, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
I would like to deal with the slightly more open-ended question 2) and 7)
separately, preferably after the other points are resolved.
> 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].
> -->
ok.
> 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.)
>
> -->
As mentioned, I'll look into this separately.
> 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.
> -->
I think "without access to" would work. Or perhaps this:
Old:
In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without
recourse to the current Manifest of the certificate's issuer.
New:
In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without
consulting 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)
> -->
No, this is incorrect, thanks for pointing it out. The intention is
(2^159)-1:
Old:
2^159-1
New:
2<sup>159</sup>-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].
> -->
ok
> 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.
> -->
Simplifying the start of the sentence eliminates one 'this' without
significantly changing the intent. The remaining 'this' is intended to
refer to 'the CRL listed' in the first sentence. Does that work?
Old:
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.
New:
The hash in the manifest's FileList
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.
> -->
Let's deal with this separately.
Thanks!
>
>
> 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
