Hi Torsten, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Dec 1, 2024, at 2:51 AM, torsten=40lodderstedt....@dmarc.ietf.org wrote: > > Hi, > > please find my responses inline. > > best regards, > Torsten. > Am 16. Nov. 2024, 22:13 +0100 schrieb rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as > follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 > ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review. > > Original: > JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection > > Current: > JSON Web Token (JWT) Response for OAuth Token Introspection > --> Ok. > > > 2) <!--[rfced] FYI, regarding the use of <tt> within this document, it renders > (using xml2rfc) in fixed-width font in the HTML and PDF files. However, > the rendering of <tt> in the text file was changed in September 2021 - > quotation marks are no longer added. When you review the diff file for > this document, it will appear that the RPC removed quotation marks; > however, actually this is due to the rendering change for <tt>. > > (For details, see the release notes for v3.10.0 on > https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) > > Examples of where <tt> is used in the original (and remains): > alg value, enc value > Accept HTTP header field > aud claim, token_introspection claim > typ JWT header > --> > > I think this is acceptable. > > 3) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows, to clarify the > phrase "additional JSON Web Token (JWT) secured response"? > > Original: > This specification proposes an additional JSON Web Token (JWT) > secured response for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection. > > Perhaps: > This specification proposes an additional response secured by > JSON Web Token (JWT) for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection. > --> wfm > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the latter part of this sentence. > What is "identifying it as subject" referring to? > > Original: > Authentication can utilize client authentication methods > or a separate access token issued to the resource server and > identifying it as subject. > > Perhaps (referring to the resource server): > Authentication can utilize client authentication methods > or a separate access token issued to the RS to > identify the RS as the subject. > > Or (also referring to the resource server): > Authentication can utilize client authentication methods > or a separate access token that is issued to the RS and > identifies the RS as the subject. > --> Please use this text. > > > 5) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this sentence, > specifically "a dedicated containing JWT claim". How should > it be updated? > > Original: > The separation of the introspection response > members into a dedicated containing JWT claim is intended to > prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that > may bear the same name. > > Perhaps: > The separation of the introspection response > members into a dedicated, contained JWT claim is intended to > prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that > may bear the same name. > --> It seems we missed one important word „JSON object“. > > The separation of the introspection response > members into a dedicated JSON object, containing JWT claim is intended to > prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that > may bear the same name. > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > content that surrounds it" > (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2). > --> Our notes are not less important than the rest of the text. It is more > like „please consider“. > > > 7) <!--[rfced] draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be 9700) does not > have a Section 3.2. How this should be updated? Please > see https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9700.html > > Original: > Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures against > replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics], section 3.2. > --> 3.2. has become 2.2. I would nevertheless change the text to referring to > the draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be 9700) more general and frame > the topic more precisely. > > Here is my proposal: > > Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures against > access token replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]. > > > 8) <!--[rfced] RFC 7525 has been obsoleted by RFC 9325. Also, > RFC 7525 is no longer part of BCP 195. How should this sentence > be updated? > > Original: > The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 > (or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC7525] in order to prevent token data > leakage. > > Perhaps (A), if simple replacement is accurate: > The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 > (or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC9325] in order to prevent token data > leakage. Please use this text. > > Or (B), if referencing the whole BCP (RFC 8996 + RFC 9325) is accurate: > The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 > (or higher) per [BCP195] in order to prevent token data leakage. > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] FYI, in Sections 10.1.1, 10.2.1, and 10.4.1, > the change controller has been updated from "IESG" to "IETF" to match > the actual IANA registries. This was noted as follows in the mail > from IANA: "Note: in accordance with recent practice, the change controller > for these registrations has been changed from the IESG to the IETF." > > This is in keeping with IANA's "Guidance for RFC Authors" (on > https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration): > "The IESG shouldn't be listed as a change controller unless the RFC that > created the registry (e.g. port numbers, XML namespaces and schemas) > requires it. The IETF should be named instead." > > We have also updated the change controller in Section 10.3.1 accordingly. I > guess you mean 11.3.1? > If that is not accurate, please let us know. > --> wfm > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] For sourcecode elements, please consider whether the > "type" attribute should be set and/or has been set correctly. > > The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. > If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to > suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable > to leave the "type" attribute not set. > --> 1 and 2 -> http-message > 3 and 4 -> json > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I reviewed the document using the > guidance given by the NIST documents and don’t see any issues with the > current text. > > Thank you. Thank you for your hard work! > > RFC Editor/ap/ar > > > On Nov 16, 2024, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2024/11/16 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9701 (draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-12) > > Title : JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection > Author(s) : T. Lodderstedt, Ed., V. Dzhuvinov > WG Chair(s) : Hannes Tschofenig, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
