Hi, I have published the new version:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope-09&url2=draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope-10&difftype=--html Apologies for the delay. Regards, OS On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 9:44 AM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Orie, > > Thank you for your reply! > > Regarding: > > We need to publish a new version that includes recent changes, > unfortunately we can't do that so close to the plenary week. > > > While we await the new version, I'll record these inline answers and move > this draft from AUTH state to IESG state so that we can keep track of the > incoming new version. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Oct 28, 2025, at 6:13 PM, Orie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We need to publish a new version that includes recent changes, > unfortunately we can't do that so close to the plenary week. > > > > Inline: > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:10 PM Sarah Tarrant < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Author(s), > > > > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC > Editor queue! > > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to > working with you > > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce > processing time > > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. > Please confer > > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is > in a > > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline > communication. > > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to > this > > message. > > > > As you read through the rest of this email: > > > > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to > make those > > changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy > creation of diffs, > > which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc > shepherds). > > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply > with any > > applicable rationale/comments. > > > > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we > hear from you > > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a > reply). Even > > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any > updates to the > > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document > will start > > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our > updates > > during AUTH48. > > > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at > > [email protected]. > > > > Thank you! > > The RPC Team > > > > -- > > > > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during > Last Call, > > please review the current version of the document: > > > > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > > > Yes, although it is a bit wordy. > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > sections current? > > > > Yes. > > > > > > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing > your > > document. For example: > > > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another > document? > > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > > > > We have CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation examples and JSON examples, > here are the relevant RFCs & drafts: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7517 > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610#appendix-G > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals/ > > > > We also have CDDL in Section 4 based on > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8610 > > > > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., > field names > > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > quotes; > > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > > > > > We use `value` to highlight CBOR labels, and other example values in the > text. > > > > 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with > > the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we > > hear otherwise at this time: > > > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current > > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > > (RFC Style Guide). > > > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > > idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the > > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 < > https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > > > > > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For > example, are > > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > > > > We have restated the "detached payload" language originating from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8152#section-2 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8152#section-4.1 > > > > I think we may have lost some opportunities for clarity in our > repetition. > > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > > document? > > > > This document is really just new header parameters for cose sign 1 > payloads that are the output of a hash function. > > > > > > > > 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. > > Are these elements used consistently? > > > > * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) > > * italics (<em/> or *) > > * bold (<strong/> or **) > > > > > > We only use ` ... I suspect we might be better off using " for a few > values instead of `, and reserve ` for highlighting code points and not > examples. > > > > > > 7) This document contains sourcecode: > > > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > > > > Yes. > > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or > text > > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > > sourcecode types.) > > > > We did not manage the draft in xml, but the proper source code type for > CDDL is: <sourcecode type="cddl" ... > > > > > > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc > file. For more > > information about this experiment, see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > > Yes please! > > > > > On Oct 28, 2025, at 4:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Author(s), > > > > > > Your document draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope-09, which has been > approved for publication as > > > an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it > > > and have started working on it. > > > > > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > > > if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > > > please send us the file at this time by attaching it > > > in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > > > between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > > > > > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > > > Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > > > your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > > > we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > > > RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > > > steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/ > >. > > > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > > > (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). > > > > > > You can check the status of your document at > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > > > queue state (for more information about these states, please see > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed > > > our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > > > to perform a final review of the document. > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > The RFC Editor Team > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
