Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Document title: a) Note that we have updated the title as follows to expand abbreviations. Original: A CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets Current: A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Sets (UCCS) b) Should "UCCS" be written as "UCCSs" to indicate that it is a plural term? Note that this question also correlates to a separate abbreviation query later on. Perhaps: A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Sets (UCCSs) --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] In the following, does use of "can be acceptable" mean that there are cases where it is not acceptable? If not, may we update as follows for precision and readability? Current: Consequently, within the well-defined scope of a secure channel, it can be acceptable and economic to use the contents of a CWT without its COSE container and tag it with a UCCS CBOR tag for further processing within that scope - or to use the contents of a UCCS CBOR tag for building a CWT to be signed by some entity that can vouch for those contents. Perhaps: Consequently, within the well-defined scope of a secure channel, it is acceptable and economic to use the contents of a CWT without its COSE container and tag it with a UCCS CBOR tag for further processing within that scope. It is also acceptable to use the contents of a UCCS CBOR tag for building a CWT to be signed by some entity that can vouch for those contents. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We note that UJCS has not appeared in an RFC previously. Please review the following sentence and let us know how the text may be updated, as [RFC7519] defines the JSON Web Token (JWT), but UJCS is not mentioned. RFC 7519 does use the term "Unsecured JWT". Are these the same? Current: This employs the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610], using its ability to also describe the structurally similar Unprotected JWT Claims Sets (UJCS) [RFC7519] in the same definition. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] To clarify, does "it" refer to the Attesting Environment? Original: The assurance provided to a Relying Party depends on the authenticity and integrity properties of the Secure Channel used for conveying the UCCS to it. Perhaps: The assurance provided to a Relying Party depends on the authenticity and integrity properties of the Secure Channel used for conveying the UCCS to the Attesting Enviornment. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] We found the following URL for the reference below: https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-specification/. Should this URL be added to the reference? Note that there is a more recent version of TPM 2.0 released in March 2024 that is also available at this URL. Should the reference be udpated to the most current version? Current: [TPM2] Trusted Computing Group, "Trusted Platform Module Library Specification", Family "2.0", Level 00, Revision 01.59, 2019. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the comments will be deleted prior to publication. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We note that the abbreviation "UCCS" (Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Set) is used for both singular and plural forms of the abbreviation throughout the document. To make these forms more distinct, we suggest using UCCSs for "Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Sets" and UCCS for "Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Set". We would also update to use the correct article for each use of this term. See below for some examples. Current (A): As UCCS were initially created for use in RATS Secure Channels, the following section provides a discussion of their use in these channels. Perhaps (A): As UCCSs were initially created for use in RATS Secure Channels, the following section provides a discussion of their use in these channels. Current (B): When UCCS emerge from the Secure Channel and into the receiver, the security properties of the secure channel no longer protect the UCCS, which now are subject to the same security properties as any other unprotected data in the Verifier environment. Perhaps (B): When UCCSs emerge from the Secure Channel and into the receiver, the security properties of the secure channel no longer protect the UCCSs, which now are subject to the same security properties as any other unprotected data in the Verifier environment. --> 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. 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 On Apr 28, 2025, at 8:38 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/04/28 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 * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9781.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9781 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9781 (draft-ietf-rats-uccs-12) Title : A CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets Author(s) : H. Birkholz, J. O'Donoghue, N. Cam-Winget, C. Bormann WG Chair(s) : Ned Smith, Kathleen Moriarty Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
