*Resending with the correct name in the greeting! Apologies for the misspelling.*
All, With Laurence'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 4:11 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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
