Hi Thomas, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782).
Once we receive approvals from Henk and Laurence, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On May 7, 2025, at 12:00 PM, Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Madison, all, > > On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 16:40, Madison Church > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, *Debbie, >> >> *Debbie - As responsible AD for this document, please review the removal of >> RFC 7519 from the Normative References section and let us know if you >> approve. >> >> Authors - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files as requested >> and all of our questions have been addressed. >> >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.xml >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) > > Thanks much, LGTM. > > cheers! > > >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782 >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/mc >> >>> On May 3, 2025, at 3:07 PM, Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@linaro.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Madison, >>> >>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 20:21, Madison Church >>> <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> 1) Thank you for your explanation. We have updated the following usage of >>>> <tt> for consistency: >>>> <tt>eat_profile</tt> claim to "eat_profile" claim (per use in >>>> RFC-to-be-9711) >>>> <tt>eat_profile</tt> parameter to "eat_profile" parameter >>>> +cwt to <tt>+cwt</tt> >>>> >>>> Note that the following terms use <tt> tags in running text but do not >>>> contain <tt> tags in Tables 1 and 2. We have left each instance as is. >>>> application/eat+cwt >>>> application/eat-ucs+json >>>> application/eat-ucs+cbor >>>> >>>> Please review the updates regarding <tt> tagging closely and let us know >>>> if any further updates are needed. >>> >>> Works for us, thanks. >>> >>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFC 7519 is not cited anywhere in this >>>>>> document. Please let us know if there is an appropriate place in the >>>>>> text to reference this RFC. Otherwise, we will remove it from the >>>>>> Normative References section. --> >>>>> >>>>> OK with removing. JWT is brought in "transitively" through EAT. >>>> >>>> 2) Upon further review, we found a place to cite this reference in the >>>> text instead of removing it from the normative references entirely. Please >>>> review the updated text below and let us know if you approve (or if you >>>> would prefer to remove the reference as originally suggested). >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> Figure 2 illustrates the six EAT wire formats and how they relate to >>>> each other. [EAT] defines four of them (CWT, JWT and Detached EAT >>>> Bundle in its JSON and CBOR flavours), whilst [UCCS] defines UCCS and >>>> UJCS. >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> Figure 2 illustrates the six EAT wire formats and how they relate to >>>> each other. [EAT] defines four of them (CBOR Web Token (CWT), JSON >>>> Web Token (JWT) [JWT], and the detached EAT bundle in its JSON and >>>> CBOR flavours), while [UCCS] defines the Unprotected CWT Claims Set >>>> (UCCS) and Unprotected JWT Claims Sets (UJCS). >>> >>> We prefer it without the JWT reference. >>> The media types are for EAT, UCCS and UJCS, not JWT. >>> A clickable reference in that opening sentence leads away from that. >>> >>> We think the document is OK without a JWT reference. >>> The CWT reference is just there for the “+cwt” registration, not >>> because it is needed for any of the EAT media type registrations. >>> >>> cheers, thanks! >>> Thomas, Henk & Laurence -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
