Hi David, Apologies! The change in Appendix A should appear now.
Files (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 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) Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 23, 2025, at 2:00 PM, David von Oheimb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you Madison for your two today's responses, > on both of which I comment below. > > On 23.12.25 19:51, Madison Church wrote: >> 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. > If the sourcecode type just governs how the contents are presented in the > RFC, which I believe is the case, > "base64" alone is sufficient because only the encoded bytes get printed, > and this output is independent of the structure of the encoded contents. > > >>> On Dec 23, 2025, at 11:54 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 > For whatever reason, I do not (yet) see any update on the first paragraph of > Appendix A. > Looks like due to some mistake/glitch the suggested change was not actually > executed so far. > Regards, > David > >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
