All, With Lance’s approval, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782).
Please note that this document normatively references RFC-to-be-9781, which is still currently in AUTH48 (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C522). Once RFC-to-be-9781 finishes AUTH48, we will move both documents forward in the publication process. Thank you for your attention and guidance during AUTH48! Best, RFC Editor/mc > On May 7, 2025, at 3:27 PM, Laurence Lundblade <l...@securitytheory.com> > wrote: > > I approve. > > LL > > >> On May 7, 2025, at 12:45 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> 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
