Hi Q, Thank you for the prompt reply. We have updated the redundant text (with a few punctuation tweaks pulled back in from our previous edits). Please review and approve.
We have also noted your request to wait for tooling to handle the name issue at the AUTH48 status page for this document. Once we receive your approval of the last update, we will move this document to TI state (Tooling Issue) to await resolution. 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/rfc9799.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-lastdiff.html (last version to this) Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9799 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Jun 6, 2025, at 4:54 AM, Q Misell <q...@as207960.net> wrote: > > Hi Megan, > > I'd rather wait a bit longer for the discussion on pull #1246 to conclude. I > don't mind if this RFC takes a little longer to publish, but with my name > shown correctly. > > In re the redundant text, indeed I did get confused with other questions. You > are right, it is redundant. I propose the following text instead: > > 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; the CAA records are verified using > the same hidden service key in either case. > > Q > Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not > necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. > AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, > Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered > in Wales under № 12417574, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: > ZA782876. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: > 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a > registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, > 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № > 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are > registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, > respectively. > > > > Ar Iau, 5 Meh 2025 am 21:39 Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > ysgrifennodd: > Hi Q, > > Thanks for the prompt reply and the updated XML file. > We have adopted this version and posted to the links below. > > A few follow-up comments/questions: > > 1) Looks like the issue about your initial is still being discussed (see > https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/pull/1246). > > 2) We may have confused you with Question 14 with side edits (sorry!). Please > review the following for redundancy and let us know if you’d like to make any > changes: > > 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. > > 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/rfc9799.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9799-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > 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/rfc9799 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 7:26 AM, Q Misell <q=40as207960....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thank you for your copy editing; as always, much appreciated! > > > > Attached is my edited XML source, incorporating changes relating to your > > comments. Below are my responses to all comments. > > > > > 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. > > > > LGTM. > > > > > Q - currently our tooling does not support the request to remove the > > > period from following your first name. > > > > I have made a PR to xml2rfc > > (https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/pull/1246) to fix this to my liking. > > I would appreciate that merged before publication. > > > > > Please insert any keywords > > > > Done. > > > > > Please review our edits to the following text to ensure we have > > > maintained your intent. > > > 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. > > > > LGTM. > > > > > Please review our updates to this text carefully and let us know any > > > objections. > > > An "onion-csr-01" challenge MUST NOT be used to issue certificates for > > > Special-Use Domain Names that are not ".onion". > > > > LGTM. > > > > > Please note that sourcecode elements in this document exceed our > > > character limit > > > > XML edited accordingly. > > > > > Please note that we have updated to use "flags" (plural) to match the use > > > in Section 4.1.1 of RFC 8659. > > > > No objection. > > > > > In the following instances, please review the use of the BCP 14 keyword > > > with the surrounding text > > > > Fixed in HTML. > > > > > We have deleted the "it" before the comma in this sentence. > > > > LGTM. > > > > > Please note that we believe Section 9.7.8 should actually read 9.7.4 in > > > the following. > > > > That is correct. > > > > > We believe "ACME Directory Metadata Fields" registry is defined in > > > Section 9.7.6 of [RFC8555], not Section 9.7.8. > > > > That is correct. > > > > > Please review our update to this text to expand MAC and avoid using an > > > abbreviation as a verb. > > > > LGTM > > > > > These sentences seem redundant. Please review. > > > > Edits LGTM > > > > > 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. > > > > LGTM > > > > > 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? > > > > The version I worked from whilst writing this RFC was the one published by > > Springer. The version on the arXiv appears to be a draft before the paper > > underwent peer-review, and as such I would rather not use it. > > > > > We assume ".onion" is pronounced as "dot onion" and have thus left > > > instances of "a ".onion" as they were. > > > > That is correct. > > > > > We see the following similar terms used. Please let us know if these > > > should be made uniform or if they should remain distinct terms. > > > > They are all equivalent, I have edited the XML accordingly. > > > > > We note that <tt> tags were used to enclose the following terms in this > > > document. > > > > XML edited accordingly. > > > > > Please note we have expanded these abbreviations as follows > > > > LGTM > > > > > 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. Please let us know how you would like > > > to proceed. > > > > As, even during the course of drafting this RFC, the links became outdated, > > I have opted to remove any <eref>s to Tor spec documents. > > > > > Please consider whether the “type" attribute of any sourcecode element > > > should be set and/or has been set correctly. > > > > I'm happy with the type attributes as they are. > > > > > 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. > > > > I've expanded the abbreviation to Certificate Request where appropriate in > > the XML. > > Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are > > not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. > > AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, > > Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company > > registered in Wales under № 12417574, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO > > register №: ZA782876. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish > > VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, > > having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, > > Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in > > Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and > > the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 > > and № UK00003718468, respectively. > > > > > > > > Ar Llun, 2 Meh 2025 am 22:53 <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> ysgrifennodd: > > 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 > > > > > > <rfc9799.xml> > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
