Hi Henk, Thank you for your response! We have noted your approval here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782.
Once we receive approval from Lawrence, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On May 7, 2025, at 12:50 PM, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote: > > 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
