Hi Michael,
Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page
(see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908).
Please note that there are some followup questions that are still outstanding.
We have copied them below for convenience. Once we receive approvals from Owen,
David, and Dan, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
>> 1. <!-- \[rfced\] We note that the following lines exceed the 72-character
>> limit. Please let us know how the lines should be broken/wrapped.
>>
>> AUTHORS: section 3.4, seems hard to wrap sensibly.
>
> 1) Would the following structure work?
>
> Perhaps:
> EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID}))
> OPTIONAL
>
>> 1. <!--\[rfced\] Does Appendix A provide the ASN.1 module for the Extension
>> Request Template attribute? Or is it provided for the Certification Request
>> Information Template attribute only?
>>
>> Original:
>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification
>> Request Information Template attribute, and it follows the
>> conventions established in \[RFC5911\], \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\].
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification
>> Request Information Template and Extension Request Template
>> attributes, and it follows the conventions established in \[RFC5911\],
>> \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\].
>> -->
>>
>> AUTHORS: I think yes. NOT QUITE SURE.
>
> 2) We ask to update this text because of the following note in the IANA
> Section:
> "For the Certification Request Information Template and Extension Request
> Template attributes in Appendix A…"
>
> We have updated to the Perhaps text above.
The files have been posted here (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
Diff files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48diff.html (diff showing
AUTH48 changes only)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908
Thank you!
Madison Church
RFC Production Center
> On Dec 17, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thank you both for your confirmation! We have updated the relevant text
>> and removed RFC 9811 as an informative reference. Please see mail from
>> 11 December for followup comments/questions that require your
>> attention. We will wait to hear back from you.
>
> I have read top-to-bottom, and I am happy with everything.
>
>> The files have been posted here (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
>
>> Diff files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-diff.html
>> (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48diff.html (diff
>> showing AUTH48 changes only)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by
>> side)
>
>> AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908
>
>> Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center
>
>>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 12:30 PM, David von Oheimb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15.12.25 18:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>> Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for
>>>> your response! To clarify, should the document only > reference RFC
>>>> 9810 instead of both RFCs? If yes, we will remove RFC > 9811 from the
>>>> Informative References section (and from the updated text > below).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think with the split in the (CMP) documents, that only 9810
>>>> need be referenced.
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> @Madison, as I tried to explain on Dec 11, the document should not
>>> reference RFC 9811 because it is only about HTTP transfer of CMP
>>> messages, which is not relevant at that point. We should reference in
>>> this paragraph only RFCs 9810, 9483, and 4211. As written, my concrete
>>> suggestion for adapting the paragraph is: A similar method has been
>>> defined in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate
>>> Management Protocol (CMP)" [RFC9810] and the "Lightweight Certificate
>>> Management Protocol (CMP) Profile" ([RFC9483], Section 4.3.3) using a
>>> CSR template as defined for CRMF [RFC4211]. David
>>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
