Hi Madison,
please add my approval, too.
Thanks a ton!
Henk
On 07.05.25 19:07, Madison Church wrote:
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
