Hi Aaron, Thank you for your reply and the updated XML file. We have adopted your version (see below) and added the keywords suggested to our database.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773-lastdiff.html (last to current version only) Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9773 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Apr 25, 2025, at 4:17 PM, Aaron Gable > <aaron=40letsencrypt....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hello editors, > > Thank you for the edits and improvements to this document! My responses to > your specific questions are inline below, and the updated XML file is > attached. > > Thanks again, > Aaron > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:51 PM <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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 > > --> > > Thank you, the improved title is great. > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on > https://www.rfc-editancestorDomainancestorDomainor.org/search. --> > > I have added the following keywords: > - certificate > - CA > - x509 > - pki > - webpki > - renew > - replace > > I'm not sure how best to see the keywords attached to other ACME documents > all in one place; please feel free to add or remove keywords to bring this > list in line with best practices. > > 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). > > --> > > This update looks great to me. > > 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 > > Thank you for catching this. I have settled on the following convention: > - `renewalInfo` (always in <tt>, always starting lowercase) refers to the new > entry added to the Directory object. > - RenewalInfo (always in plaintext, always starting uppercase) refers to the > newly-introduced resource/object. > > I've also eliminated all use of the shortened form "info", except as part of > those two compound words. I have attempted to update the whole document to > abide by this convention, but may have missed a spot. Please let me know if I > have! > > 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. > > > --> > > Thanks for the heads-up! > > 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 > > See above, I believe I have standardized this now. > > New Order request vs. new-order request > > Interestingly, neither of these is correct! I have updated all instances to > "newOrder request", to match RFC 8555 and other ACME documents. > > Server vs. server > > Standardized on the lowercase form, to match RFC 8555 > > base64url-encoding vs. base64url encoding > > Standardized on the form without a hyphen, to match RFC 8555. > > b) There are instances of simply RenewalInfo. Should a label follow > (e.g., object, resource, etc.) for the ease of the reader? > > I have added either "object" or "resource" after all instances of RenewalInfo > except those of the form "the certificate's RenewalInfo", which I think are > already sufficiently clear. > > > --> > > > 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 > = > || > > I believe I have standardized the use of <tt> so that now it is used in only > the following circumstances: > - around JSON object field names, such as renewalInfo, suggestedWindow, > explanationURL, start, end, and replaces > - around literal byte sequences, such as the period, equals, pipes, and > various hex and base64 values > > I have removed it from Retry-After, keyIdentifier, and cron. > > --> > > > 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 for this reference; I believe this document abides by all of its > suggestions. All people mentioned in the acknowledgements have given their > permission and preferred name. > > > > 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. > > I believe all questions have been addressed above. > > > * 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. > > No coauthors have submitted any parallel changes. > > > * 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 > > All the content appears correct to my eye, though I've now stared at it for > so long that I'm sure I'm blind to any remaining typos. > > > * 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). > > Reviewed. > > > * 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>. > > All semantic markup (largely just sourcecode and tt in this document) looks > good to me. > > > * 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. > > Formatting looks good. Thank you so much for getting the text version to have > nice indentation when defining new object fields (e.g. Section 5); I couldn't > figure out how to get my markdown-to-rfc tooling to do that at all. > > 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 > > > <rfc9773.xml> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
