Hi Madison, I agree with Michael, these changes look good. Thanks for all your help. Owen
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday 17 December 2025 18:48 To: Madison Church <[email protected]> Cc: David von Oheimb <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9908 <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-23> for your review 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
