Thomas, On Aug 28, 2025, in reply to the intake form, you wrote: > Yes: the examples in Appendix A need to be recomputed as soon as IANA > makes the allocations. > We have scripts in place for that, so the update should take very > little time when the time comes. > We put a note for you there just in case.
Do the examples need to be recomputed at this time? Re: > Consistency with 9052 seems like an excellent objective. We could do > a wholesale change: > * s/COSE signed object/COSE Signed Message/g > * s/signed COSE message/COSE Signed Message/g These terms have been updated; please review. Thank you for your replies. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.xml This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-lastrfcdiff.html We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9921 Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Feb 17, 2026, at 2:07 AM, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi Alice, > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 at 20:23, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> Thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised files >> are here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.xml >> >> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> -- Re: #1, FYI, we reverted to not expand "CBOR" in the title and abstract. >> This is in keeping with the titles of recent RFCs (e.g., RFCs 9864, 9679, >> 9596) and avoids having an acronymn expansion within an acronym expansion. >> >> Original: >> COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens >> >> Current: >> CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Header Parameter for Timestamp >> Tokens as Defined in RFC 3161 >> >> >> Regarding "CBOR": It is expanded in Section 3.1 (the first instance outside >> the context of "COSE"). Just let us know if you prefer to add a reference to >> RFC 8949, or a sentence that expands CBOR earlier. > > OK > >> -- Re: #4 (usage of "primary"), no changes needed. > > OK > >> -- Re: #6 (MessageImprint in this document vs. messageImprint in RFC 3161) >> >>> Perhaps we should do this: >>> * MessageImprint, when referring to the type; >>> * messageImprint, when referring to the value. >>> However, there may be a non-zero risk of introducing some confusion. >>> WDYT? >> >> If the current usage (all 'MessageImprint' in this document) is sufficiently >> clear, then we suggest leaving it as is in order to avoid introducing >> confusion. > > OK, thanks for the sound advice. > >> -- Re: #10 (use of the OID from freeTSA.org, as detailed in your reply) >> >> Thank you for this information. Because the Internet-Draft was approved with >> this OID in the examples in Appendices A.1 and A.2, we will assume it’s fine >> to leave it unless someone suggests otherwise. > > Apparently, no one noticed it. In any case, it doesn't look like a > substantial problem. > >> -- Re: #12b (Terminology) >> >>>> COSE signed object vs. signed COSE object >>> >>> COSE signer object >> >> We updated to "COSE signed object", assuming "signed" not "signer" was >> intended; please review. > > Yes, sorry for the typo, I meant "signed". > >> FYI, there remain 2 instances of "signed COSE message". (Of note: We see >> zero instances of "COSE signed object" in existing RFCs. We see "COSE Signed >> Message" in RFC 9052.) > > Consistency with 9052 seems like an excellent objective. We could do > a wholesale change: > * s/COSE signed object/COSE Signed Message/g > * s/signed COSE message/COSE Signed Message/g > >> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors >> before continuing the publication process. This page shows >> the AUTH48 status of your document: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9921 >> >> Thank you. >> >> Alice Russo >> RFC Production Center > > Thank you! -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
