Authors, Per internal discussion with RPAT, we have added "base64" to the list of sourcecode types. Thus, we have left the sourcecode types as is in sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, 5.4.1, 5.5.1, and 5.6. We did not include DER, as we believe we should avoid indicating what is inside the base64.
We ask that at least one author verify that base64 is acceptable before moving forward with the publication process. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 23, 2025, at 11:54 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > David - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document with your > suggestion and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908). > > The files have been posted here: > 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 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > We have received all necessary approvals and we are almost ready to prepare > this document for publication. Note that we are still conversing with RPAT > regarding the addition of "base64-encoded-der" to the sourcecode-types list. > Once we reach a solution, we will update the document accordingly. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 20, 2025, at 4:11 AM, David von Oheimb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Madison et al., >> thank you for your updates. >> >> Nice that you were able to avoid breaking up the line containing >> "EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID})) OPTIONAL". >> Well, regarding the recent below extension of the intro paragraph of >> Appendix A, >> having a close look again also at related parts of the document, >> I found that the term "Extension Request Template" newly used in the >> paragraph has been copied from section 7, >> while this term has not really been explicitly introduced (in section 3.4) >> and its OID uses the abbreviated name "extensionReqTemplate". >> As long as this is not considered somewhat confusing, I'd be fine with it as >> well. >> Appendix A not only introduces the Certification Request Information >> Template attribute >> and its Extension Request Template / extensionReqTemplate sub-attribute, >> but also other sub-structures of the Certification Request Information >> Template. >> If you are still open for a document adaptation, the paragraph may be >> improved to, e.g., >> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification >> Request Information Template attribute and its sub-template structures. >> It follows the conventions established in \[RFC5911\], >> \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\]. >> Regardless of this minor editorial point, since it only pertains to the >> informal intro of Appendix A, >> I am also fine with the document, so you can note my approval as well. >> David >> >> On 19.12.25 18:32, Madison Church wrote: >>> Rather than updating to the original suggestion below, we have simply >>> shifted each line of sourcecode to the left by 2 spaces to retain the >>> original format. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 19, 2025, at 10:05 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> We have noted both approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908). >>> >>> For the line of sourcecode in Section 3.4, the warning pertains to the text >>> output, where the line is 74 characters (2 over the limit of 72 >>> characters). >>> >>> txt (74 characters): >>> EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID})) OPTIONAL >>> >>> html (71 characters): >>> EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID})) OPTIONAL >>> >>> Thus, we have updated this line of sourcecode to our original suggestion >>> below: >>> >>> >>> 1. <!--\[rfced\] Does Appendix A provide the ASN.1 module for the Extension >>> Request Template attribute? Or is it provided for the Certification Request >>> Information Template attribute only? >>> >>> Original: >>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification >>> Request Information Template attribute, and it follows the >>> conventions established in \[RFC5911\], \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification >>> Request Information Template and Extension Request Template >>> attributes, and it follows the conventions established in \[RFC5911\], >>> \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\]. >>> --> >>> >>> AUTHORS: I think yes. NOT QUITE SURE. >>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
