Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added the following sentence to Section 1.1
("Conventions and Definitions") in order to include a citation for RFC 8792 in
the text. Please let us know of any objections.
Current:
Various examples in this document contain long lines that may be folded,
as described in [RFC8792].
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "Concealed HTTP authentication scheme" and
"Concealed authentication scheme" appear to be used inconsistently. Please
review these occurrences and let us know if/how they be made consistent. Some
examples are listed here:
Original:
When a client wishes to use the Concealed HTTP authentication scheme
with a request, it SHALL compute the authentication proof using a TLS
keying material exporter with the following parameters:
...
If a frontend is configured to check the Concealed authentication
scheme, it will parse the Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization)
header field.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Please review sourcecode types within the markdown file, and
let us know if they should be set and/or have been set correctly.
The current list of preferred values for sourcecode types is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the sourcecode type not set.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We see that the capitalization of "Key ID" is inconsistent.
Please let how we should update it.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] As "Signature Algorithm" is being used in a general way and not
as a field name, may we make it lowercase in this sentence?
Original:
The encoding of the public key is determined by the Signature
Algorithm in use as follows:
Perhaps:
The encoding of the public key is determined by the signature
algorithm in use as follows:
-->
6) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "which" to "that" here? It depends on
the intended meaning, as noted below.
Original:
The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure
[PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings which are not DER
MUST be rejected.
Perhaps (restrictive "that", meaning some BER encodings):
The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure
[PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings that are not DER
MUST be rejected.
Or (nonrestrictive "which", meaning all BER encodings):
The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure
[PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings, which are not DER,
MUST be rejected.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] We having difficulty parsing the following sentence.
Does the key ID authenticate or does the client?
Current:
For example, the key ID "basement" authenticating using Ed25519
[ED25519] could produce the following header field
Perhaps:
For example, a client authenticating with the key ID "basement"
and using Ed25519 [ED25519] could produce the following header
field
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8941 has been obsoleted by RFC 9651. May we replace RFC
8941 with RFC 9651?
-->
9) <!-- [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.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] References. May we add the following URL to this reference for
the ease of the reader?
https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690
Current:
[X.690] ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules:
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X690, ISO/IEC 8825-1:2021,
February 2021.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ap/jm
On 1/31/25 2:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/01/31
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 .md 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 .md 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 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
--------------------------
This document is being edited in kramdown-rfc markdown. Once the content
is approved, the markdown will be converted to RFCXML and formatted as an
RFC. You will be asked to review and approve the XML and output formats.
Your final approval means you approve both the content and format.
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/rfc9729.md
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the markdown:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdrfcdiff.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9729 (draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-12)
Title : The Concealed HTTP Authentication Scheme
Author(s) : D. Schinazi, D. Oliver, J. Hoyland
WG Chair(s) : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly
Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
