Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please note the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
Original:
Updates to Lightweight OCSP Profile for High Volume Environments
Current:
Updates to the Lightweight Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
Profile for High Volume Environments
Because this document will obsolete RFC 5019 (rather than update it), we
suggest changing the title and abbreviated title as follows. Is this acceptable?
Original:
Updates to Lightweight OCSP Profile for High Volume Environments
Perhaps (same title as RFC 5019):
The Lightweight Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile
for High-Volume Environments
Similarly, may the abbreviated title (which appears in the running header
of the PDF) be updated as follows?
Original:
Lightweight OCSP Profile Update
Perhaps:
Lightweight OCSP Profile
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!--[rfced] FYI, we changed "RECOMMENDS" to "is RECOMMENDED by" (2
instances),
as "RECOMMENDED" is the defined keyword from BCP 14. This update allows using
the <bcp14> element without warnings. We realize the original text matches
RFC 5019. For example:
Original:
Clients SHOULD NOT include the requestExtensions structure. If a
requestExtensions structure is included, this profile RECOMMENDS that
it contain only the nonce extension (id-pkix-ocsp-nonce).
Current:
Clients SHOULD NOT include the requestExtensions structure. If a
requestExtensions structure is included, it is RECOMMENDED by this
profile that the structure contain only the nonce extension (id-pkix-
ocsp-nonce).
-->
4) <!--[rfced] Is this line within the sourcecode in Section 3.2.1
intended to be a comment within the sourcecode, or should it be
taken out of the sourcecode? (Note: This line exceeded the 72-character
limit so we included a line break within the sourcecode.)
Original:
The value for response SHALL be the DER encoding of BasicOCSPResponse.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows to clarify that the
protocol in [RFC5019] is backward compatible, rather than the RFC itself?
Original:
Older responders which provide backward compatibility with [RFC5019]
MAY use the byName field to represent the ResponderID, but should
transition to using the byKey field as soon as practical.
Perhaps:
Older responders that provide backward compatibility with the protocol
defined in [RFC5019] MAY use the byName field to represent the ResponderID
but should transition to using the byKey field as soon as practical.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] We are having some trouble understanding how "server name and
base64-encoded OCSPRequest structure" fits into the sentence below. Please
review and let us know the sentence may be updated for clarity.
Original:
When sending requests that are less than or
equal to 255 bytes in total (after encoding) including the scheme and
delimiters (http://), server name and base64-encoded OCSPRequest
structure, clients MUST use the GET method (to enable OCSP response
caching).
Perhaps:
When sending requests that are less than or
equal to 255 bytes in total (after encoding), including the scheme and
delimiters (http://), server name, and base64-encoded OCSPRequest
structure, clients MUST use the GET method (to enable OCSP response
caching).
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Should "productedAt" be "producedAt" (no 't')?
Even though RFC 5019 contains one instance of "productedAt",
it contains seven instances of "producedAt". We note that other
RFCs also use "producedAt" (e.g., RFCs 9654, 6960, 5912).
Original:
productedAt = March 19, 2023 01:00:00 GMT
Suggested:
producedAt = March 19, 2023 01:00:00 GMT
-->
8) <!--[rfced] May this sentence be updated as follows to avoid citing
RFC 9846 twice?
Original:
This functionality has been specified as an extension to the TLS
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] protocol in Section 4.4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], but can be applied to any client-server
protocol.
Current:
This functionality has been specified as an extension to the TLS
protocol [RFC9846] in Section 4.4.2 of [RFC9846] but can be applied
to any client-server protocol.
Option A:
This functionality has been specified as an extension to the TLS
protocol in Section 4.4.2 of [RFC9846] but can be applied
to any client-server protocol.
Option B:
In Section 4.4.2 of [RFC9846], this functionality has been specified
as an extension to the TLS protocol, but it can be applied to any
client-server protocol.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to find a document directly matching the
title provided in the original reference. The URL provided goes to the
homepage for the Open Mobile Alliance. We did find the following URL,
which points to the OCSP Mobile Profile:
https://www.openmobilealliance.org/release/OCSP/V1_0-20040127-C/OMA-WAP-OCSP-V1_0-20040127-C.pdf
May we update this reference as follows?
Original:
[OCSPMP] Open Mobile Alliance, "OCSP Mobile Profile V1.0",
www.openmobilealliance.org .
Perhaps:
[OCSPMP] Open Mobile Alliance, "Online Certificate Status Protocol
Mobile Profile", Candidate Version V1.0, 27 January 2004,
<https://www.openmobilealliance.org/release/OCSP/V1_0-20040127-C/OMA-WAP-OCSP-V1_0-20040127-C.pdf>.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type"
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types)
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically,
should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another
element?
-->
11) <!--[rfced] Should instances of "OCSP protocol" be updated to simply
"OCSP" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "OCSP protocol" would read
"Online Certificate Status Protocol protocol")? Please review and let us
know if any updates are needed.
Original:
Future versions of the OCSP protocol may provide a way for the client
to know whether the responder supports nonces or does not support
nonces.
...
The authors of this version of the document wish to thank Alex Deacon
and Ryan Hurst for their work to produce the original version of the
lightweight profile for the OCSP protocol.
-->
12) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following term are used
throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon
first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document?
certification authority (CA)
b) We note that "AIA" has been expanded two different ways in the document.
Please review and let us know which version should be used for consistency.
authorityInfoAccess (AIA) vs. authorityInformationAccess (AIA)
-->
13) <!-- [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.
For example, please consider whether "man-in-the-middle" should be updated.
-->
Thank you.
Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo
RFC Production Center
On Jan 16, 2026, at 10:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/01/16
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
* [email protected] (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).
* [email protected], 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,
[email protected] 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/rfc9919.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9919
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9919 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-12)
Title : Updates to Lightweight OCSP Profile for High Volume
Environments
Author(s) : T. Ito, C. Wilson, C. Bonnell, S. Turner
WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
