Rohan,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] We note a small discrepancy between the ASN.1 snippet in
Section 3 and the ASN.1 in Appendix A: the { character at the end
of the "id-kp" line in Section 3 is on the following line in the
Appendix. Please review and let us know if/how to make these
consistent. Might it be possible to simply point the reader to
Appendix A instead of repeating the code?
Original (Section 3):
id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
Original (Appendix A):
id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Might it be beneficial to the reader to replace "This"
with the antecedent? If so, we will also use the necessary <tt>
marking in the xml.
Original:
This extended key purpose does not introduce new security risks but
instead reduces existing security risks by providing means to identify
if the certificate is generated to sign IM identity credentials.
Perhaps:
The KeyPurposeId id-kp-imUri does not introduce new security risks;
instead, it reduces existing security risks by providing means to
identify if the certificate is generated to sign IM identity
credentials.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions regarding the IANA
Considerations section:
a) Please review the citation to the Security Considerations section
in the following text:
Original:
IANA is requested to register the following OIDs in the "SMI Security
for PKIX Extended Key Purpose" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3). These OIDs
are defined in Section 4.
Section 3 defines the "KeyPurposeId id-kp-imUri". We will update
unless we hear objection.
b) We note that the first paragraph of the IANA Considerations spoke
of OIDs (plural), but we see only one registration in the IANA
registry mentioned. We have updated to use the singular. Please
review that this is as intended.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] We had the following comments regarding abbreviation use
in this document:
a) Please note that we have expanded the following abbreviations.
Please review and let us know any objections.
XMPP - Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
b) Please note that we have updated frequently used expanded
abbreviations to remove their expansions after first use in accordance
with the guidance at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev.-->
5) <!-- [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.
Particularly, note that we have updated an <artwork> tag in Section 3
to instead appear as <sourcecode>. Please review and let us know any
objections.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have added a single pair of <tt> tags
around a use of id-kp-imUri for consistency. Please let us know
any objections.-->
7) <!--[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.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/02/03
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/rfc9734.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9734
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9734 (draft-ietf-lamps-im-keyusage-04)
Title : X.509 Certificate Extended Key Usage (EKU) for Instant
Messaging URIs
Author(s) : R. Mahy
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]
