Hi everyone, Please see inline our responses to the form. It is worth noting that we have uploaded a new version of the draft with the small changes applied (updated ACKs and removed <tt>).
Best regards, The EAP-EDHOC authors. Francisco López Gómez Predoctoral Researcher Dept. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [logo UMU]<https://www.um.es> [logo euniwell]<https://www.euniwell.eu/> [logo hr]<https://www.um.es/web/hrs4r> [logo CMN]<https://www.campusmarenostrum.es/> ________________________________ De: [email protected] <[email protected]> Enviado: Miércoles, 29 de Julio de 2026 1:50 Para: [email protected] <[email protected]>; RAFAEL MARIN LOPEZ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; FRANCISCO LOPEZ GOMEZ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Asunto: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc 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 receive a reply. We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel that you need to make any updates to the document. After we hear from you, your document will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48). Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at [email protected]. Thank you! The RPC Team -- 1) Please consider whether any updates to the following are needed: - Authors' Addresses - Contributors - Acknowledgments [Authors] We have carefully reviewed authors' information and the ACKs section, which has been updated with new funding information and ACKs to the IESG Ads from the Ballot. 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, WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TCzX9fqT03ndkyE1fXKUKIdfldhwMiP9iQyJbKsBD9_xpy_UfDlk28giMY1TDWD1FvN3o3CZVaUsnQnGi7CcmnOflzWG$ >."). * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used for token names." etc.)? [Authors] With respect to capitalization and terminology, all the relevant aspects are already discussed in Section 2, e.g., "Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in EAP [RFC3748] and EDHOC [RFC9528]." However, during the standardization process we have tried to align structure and requirements with the rest of EAP methods, e.g., EAP-TLS 1.3 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9190/). 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the References section 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TCzX9fqT03ndkyE1fXKUKIdfldhwMiP9iQyJbKsBD9_xpy_UfDlk28giMY1TDWD1FvN3o3CZVaUsnQnGi7Ccmm2ZR6K0$ >. [Authors] We have reviewed all references both manually and with id-nits and seem to be valid and currently active. 4) This document uses fixed width font (<tt>) in the following, but not elsewhere in the document. Please review. Should these instances of <tt> be removed? This document defines only the container for carrying EAP Channel Binding information within EAP-EDHOC messages, using the <tt>EAD_3</tt> and <tt>EAD_4</tt> fields. [Authors] Yes, we have removed those <tt> instances. 5) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as possible, and * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. [Authors] We have used aasvg as SVG engine, generating those figures from ASCII art. We have reviewed it again and seem to be correct. 6) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TCzX9fqT03ndkyE1fXKUKIdfldhwMiP9iQyJbKsBD9_xpy_UfDlk28giMY1TDWD1FvN3o3CZVaUsnQnGi7Ccmopfbbuv$ . [Authors] We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this Pilot Tests but prefer to continue with the classical path. 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? [Authors] As far as author's knowledge, there is no extra considerations for the RPC. Title : Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) with Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman over COSE (EDHOC) Author(s) : Dan Garcia-Carrillo, Rafael Marin-Lopez, Göran Selander, John Preuß Mattsson, Francisco Lopez-Gomez Working Group Chair(s) : Joseph Salowey, Peter Yee Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
