Hi Sean, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
Please note that we are awaiting for these two queries to be confirmed: >> 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>. >> --> > > I will defer to my co-authors on this one. > >> 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? >> --> > > I will put this on my to do list ;) The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9919-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9919 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 20, 2026, at 7:39 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > >> On Jan 16, 2026, at 13:46, [email protected] wrote: >> >> 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 >> --> > > Yes, since we’re obsoleting it there’s no need for the “Updates to” / > “Update” words. > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > Revocation > >> 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). >> --> > > WFM > >> 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. >> --> > > This sentence should be taken out of the source code, so I guess that means > there’s two blocks of source code. > >> 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. >> --> > > Yes > >> 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). >> --> > > I think that’s right. The 255 bytes needs to include everything that is > listed there. > >> 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 >> --> > > GREAT CATCH! > > Definitely needs to be “producedAt”! > >> 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. >> --> > > I prefer option A. > >> 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>. >> --> > > I will defer to my co-authors on this one. > >> 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? >> --> > > I will put this on my to do list ;) > >> 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. >> --> > > Yes please drop the extra “protocol” where appropriate. > >> 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) > > I am happy with that. > >> 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) >> --> > > So this is a bit weird maybe: > > s3.2.2: > > OLD: > > authorityInfoAccess > (AIA) extension nor cRLDistributionPoints (CRLDP) extension > > NEW: > > Authority Information Access > (AIA) extension nor CRL Distribution Points (CRLDP) extension > > S4.1: > > OLD: > > authorityInfoAccess extension > > NEW: > > AIA extension > > OLD: > > authorityInformationAccess (AIA) extension > cRLDistributionPoints extension > > NEW: > > AIA extension > CRLDP extension > > >> 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. >> --> > > I am fine with changing it to on-path if my co-authors are. > > spt > >> 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]
