Hi Madison, Thank you for the update. On your followup questions:
>>> 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) > > [rfced] Thank you for your suggestion! Looking back at the Abstract of the > document, UCCS is simply expanded as "Unprotected CWT Claims Set". Would the > following title work to match how the abbreviation is expanded in the > Abstract (and perhaps make the title more concise)? > > Current: > A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Unprotected > CBOR Web Token Claims Sets (UCCS) > > Perhaps: > A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Unprotected > CWT Claims Sets (UCCS) I believe this is an improvement, as “CBOR Web Token” really doesn’t confer that much more information than “CWT” and the “UCCS” abbreviation now becomes understandable. I need to note though that one of us liked my original “Maybe" formulation for its consistency, unwrapping all of the acronyms. I generally agree with this RFC editor style policy (despite its sometimes comical results — which could be dodged e.g., with RFC 9528), but I think there are diminishing returns at some point, and expanding CWT is of negative value here. Maybe we can return to this if needed. > […] > > [rfced] Noted - Thank you for the suggestion! We will leave the use of UCCS > as is per your response to 1b. With that being said, we found one spot where > clarification may be needed regarding the use of articles before UCCS. Please > review the text below and let us know which option you prefer (or if you have > any additional revisions/suggestions). > > Current: > In this regard, UCCS is similar in security considerations to > JWTs [BCP225] using the algorithm "none". > > Perhaps 1 (singular use of UCCS): > In this regard, a UCCS is similar in security considerations to > JWTs [BCP225] using the algorithm "none". > > Perhaps 2 (plural use of UCCS): > In this regard, UCCS are similar in security considerations to > JWTs [BCP225] using the algorithm "none". I think the above variant 2 works best. > Or (plural use of UCCS, plus rewording): > In this regard, UCCS have similar security considerations compared to > JWTs [BCP225] using the algorithm "none". Grüße, Carsten > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.xml > > The diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status page, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9781 > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > >> 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
