RFC Editor, thank you for editing this document and raising these questions. Below is a reply I consolidated from the responses of three of the four authors; the fourth author will join us in the next round. We will start our full rereads from the result of the current round.
On 2025-04-29, at 05:51, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > 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) This unannounced expansion of CWT makes it hard to understand what UCCS stands for (it’s not UCWTCS). (I don’t have a conclusive answer, as these nested expansions tend to get out of hand. A logical fix that at least is not wronger would be: Maybe: A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Unprotected CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims Sets (UCCS) (While this is probably the answer that is needed to your question, I would like to note that we already consistently leave out the expansion of CBOR in contexts involving COSE or CWT, as in RFC9597 CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers. T. Looker, M.B. Jones. RFC9679 CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint. K. Isobe, We have made a similar transition for the expansion of COSE: RFC9528 Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC). G. Selander, J. Preuß RFC9529 Traces of Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC). G. Selander, RFC9597 CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers. T. Looker, M.B. Jones. … but not yet for CWT. None of these are listed in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list ) > 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) > --> The pedantic German in me wants to agree, but I’m not feeling too well about that and I got strong pushback from two other co-authors. Unprotected CWT Claims Set -> UCCS Unprotected CWT Claims Sets -> UCCS (So “S” already abbreviates “Sets” or “Set”.) We'd rather go through the exercise of saying that the abbreviation UCCS is used both for singular and plural. > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> Secure Channel CWT (if not included in title) RATS Conceptual Message Conveyance Privacy Confidentiality CDDL EAT UJCS (I consolidated this list with the objective of optimizing recall, for those few that actually use the keywords for searching, so we are erring on the side of inclusion.) > 3) <!-- [rfced] In the following, does use of "can be acceptable" mean that > there are cases where it is not acceptable? Unfortunately, very much yes! > 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. > --> That would indeed make an assertion that is too strong (not just an editorial change). > 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. Right. > RFC 7519 does use the term "Unsecured JWT". Are these the > same? Unfortunately not, and one purpose of this draft is to nudge specifications away from using “Unsecured JWT” (which are full CWT wrapping a JWT Claim Set in a JWS, just with neutered protection) towards “UJCS” (which are just the JWT Claims Set intestines of a JWT). > 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. > --> Maybe: This employs the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610], using its ability to also describe in the same definition the structurally similar use of JWT Claims Sets [RFC7519], without any protective wrapper (such as JWS) applied, as Unprotected JWT Claims Sets (UJCS). > 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. > --> Actually: The assurance provided to a Relying Party depends, among others, on the authenticity and integrity properties of the Secure Channel used for conveying the UCCS to the Relying Party. Good catch! > 6) <!-- [rfced] We found the following URL for the reference below: > https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-specification/. That indeed appears to be the main landing page. Note that the reference that is in the edited RFC-to-be in an XML comment gives the title of the previous revision 1.83; we now have "Version 184” with a different title. > 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. > --> Maybe (plus the reference target you found): [TPM2] Trusted Computing Group, "Trusted Platform Module 2.0 Library", Version 184, 2025. This is an informative reference, and the referenced page is good about listing previous revisions, so we are not too concerned about the target link going to be updated to new revisions in the future. “6a)" (While looking at references, I notice that we reference CDDL as RFC 8610 and RFC 9165; actually, by now it’s actually 8610, 9682, 9165, and 9741. Nice opportunity to try a referencegroup, but I’m not actually suggesting this if it will slow things down.) > 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. > --> Right. As to comments that are not from rfced, I only find <!— Localwords: comments; these are dropped by an Emacs spell checker and can safely be ignored (unless you think there are misspellings in there!) — apologies for not removing them in the submitted revision. > 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. > --> Please see the response to (1b). However, usage as in B maybe is simpler as: Maybe (B): When a UCCS emerges 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. > 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. --> We had this style guide in mind and are not aware of any further changes needed. Grüße, Carsten > 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
