Hi Carsten, Thank you for your reply! We have made your requested updates and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9781).
The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781.xml The updated diffs have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9781-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Once we receive approvals from Henk, Nancy, and Jeremy, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thanks! RFC Editor/mc > On May 10, 2025, at 2:42 PM, Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote: > > On 2025-05-07, at 18:00, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. > > I have two more: > > (1) > (Section 4): > > OLD: > When a UCCS emerges from the Secure Channel and into the receiver, the > security properties of the secure channel no longer protect the UCCS, which > now are subject to the same security properties as any other unprotected data > in the Verifier environment. If the receiver subsequently forwards UCCS, they > are treated as though they originated within the receiver. > > NEW: > When a UCCS emerges from the Secure Channel and into the receiver, the > security properties of the secure channel no longer protect the UCCS, which > now is subject > _______________________________________________________________________^ > to the same security properties as any other unprotected data in the Verifier > environment. If the receiver subsequently forwards UCCS, they are treated as > though they originated within the receiver. > > > The “which" points to the (now singular) UCCS, not the security properties > (which aren’t subject to security properties!). Sorry for misleading with my > original suggestion. > > > (2) > I note that since the acronym “CWT” no longer is in the title, it probably > should be added to the keywords. > > > With these two changes, RFC-to-be 9781 is now ready for publication. > > Grüße, Carsten > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
