Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Thank you both for your confirmation! We have updated the relevant text
    > and removed RFC 9811 as an informative reference. Please see mail from
    > 11 December for followup comments/questions that require your
    > attention. We will wait to hear back from you.

I have read top-to-bottom, and I am happy with everything.

    > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.txt
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.pdf
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.html
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.xml

    > Diff files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-diff.html
    > (comprehensive diff)
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48diff.html (diff
    > showing AUTH48 changes only)
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by
    > side)

    > AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908

    > Thank you!  Madison Church RFC Production Center

    >> On Dec 15, 2025, at 12:30 PM, David von Oheimb <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> On 15.12.25 18:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >>> Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for
    >>> your response! To clarify, should the document only > reference RFC
    >>> 9810 instead of both RFCs? If yes, we will remove RFC > 9811 from the
    >>> Informative References section (and from the updated text > below).
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I think with the split in the (CMP) documents, that only 9810
    >>> need be referenced.
    >> Correct.
    >>
    >> @Madison, as I tried to explain on Dec 11, the document should not
    >> reference RFC 9811 because it is only about HTTP transfer of CMP
    >> messages, which is not relevant at that point.  We should reference in
    >> this paragraph only RFCs 9810, 9483, and 4211. As written, my concrete
    >> suggestion for adapting the paragraph is: A similar method has been
    >> defined in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate
    >> Management Protocol (CMP)" [RFC9810] and the "Lightweight Certificate
    >> Management Protocol (CMP) Profile" ([RFC9483], Section 4.3.3) using a
    >> CSR template as defined for CRMF [RFC4211].  David
    >>


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to