IANA,
Please make the minor updates below to the following media types in the "Media
Types" registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml). These updates
apply to each media type:
application/eat+cwt
application/eat+jwt
application/eat-bun+cbor
application/eat-bun+json
application/eat-ucs+cbor
application/eat-ucs+json
1) Update "case-insensitive" to "case insensitive" (no hyphen).
OLD:
Optional parameters: "eat_profile" (EAT profile in string format. OIDs must use
the
dotted-decimal notation. The parameter value is case-insensitive.)
NEW:
Optional parameters: "eat_profile" (EAT profile in string format. OIDs must use
the
dotted-decimal notation. The parameter value is case insensitive.)
2) Add "and" before "Replying Parties".
OLD:
Applications that use this media type: Attesters, Verifiers,
Endorsers and Reference-Value providers, Relying Parties that need
to transfer EAT payloads over HTTP(S), CoAP(S), and other
transports.
NEW:
Applications that use this media type: Attesters, Verifiers,
Endorsers and Reference-Value providers, and Relying Parties that
need to transfer EAT payloads over HTTP(S), CoAP(S), and other
transports.
3) Update "&" to "@".
OLD:
Person & email address to contact for further information: RATS WG mailing list
(rats&ietf.org)
NEW:
Person & email address to contact for further information: RATS WG mailing list
(r...@ietf.org)
4) Please add "Provisional registration: no" after "Author/Change controller:
IETF"
Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc
> On May 7, 2025, at 4:15 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
> wrote:
>
> *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
