Hi Mike and *Paul (AD), Thanks for providing the updated XML file. The changes are now reflected in our files. Hannes and Orie, we will assume your assent to these changes unless we hear otherwise.
*Paul, please review the following changes and let us know if you approve (we updated item 3 and added item 4; see Mike’s explanation for the new changes in the thread below). The updates can also be viewed here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html. 1) Section 5.1 OLD: The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the essential parameters required to represent the key as a COSE Key, rather than any additional data that might accompany the key. NEW: The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the ordered essential parameters needed to represent a COSE Key, with all other parameters excluded. ... 2) Section 5.3 OLD: Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key can use the COSE Key Thumbprint. NEW: The only prerequisites are that the COSE_Key representation of the key be defined and the party creating the COSE Key Thumbprint be in possession of the necessary key material. … 3) Addition of Section 5.5 NEW: 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints The ckt of a COSE Key, as described in Section 7 of [RFC9052], and the jkt of a JSON Web Key, as described in Section 4 of [RFC7517], are different even when the underlying cryptographic key material is the same. This document does not register a JWT confirmation method [RFC7800] for using "ckt" as a confirmation method for a JWT or a CWT confirmation method [RFC8747] for using "jkt" as a confirmation method for a CWT. ... 4) Section 5.6 - please review the file for the changes to this section. … 5) Section 8 OLD: Confirmation Method Name: ckt Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt NEW: Confirmation Method Name: ckt Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT Confirmation Method Name: (none) —FILES (please refresh)— The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.xml The updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html This diff file shows all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 Thank you, RFC Editor/kc > On Dec 4, 2024, at 3:08 PM, Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Folks, I hate to do this, but in reviewing the newly added section, I > realized that it was incorrectly using the term "claim". In both RFC 7800 > and RFC 8747, "cnf" is a claim, whereas the JWT and CWT confirmation members > are referred to as "members" - not "claims". Then I realized there other > places in the draft this the term "claim" was incorrectly used. > > The attached updated source file makes the needed corrections. For easier > reviewing, a diff from the RFC Editor's source also follows. > > RFC Editor, please apply these edits and send out a new draft for review. > > Thanks, > -- Mike (writing as a COSE chair) > > diff rfc9679.xml rfc9679_mbj.xml > 46c46 > < <date year="2024" month="October"/> > --- >> <date year="2024" month="December"/> > 284,285c284,288 > < This document does not register a JWT claim for using ckt as a > confirmation > < method for a JWT or a CWT claim for using jkt as a confirmation method > for a CWT. > --- >> This document does not register >> a JWT confirmation method <xref target="RFC7800"/> >> for using "ckt" as a confirmation method for a JWT >> or a CWT confirmation method <xref target="RFC8747"/> >> for using "jkt" as a confirmation method for a CWT. > 293,294c296,297 > < <t>The proof-of-possession key is identified using the "ckt" claim, > < the COSE Key Thumbprint claim. This claim contains the value of > --- >> <t>The proof-of-possession key is identified using the "ckt" member of >> the CWT confirmation claim "cnf". This member contains the value of > 299c302 > < claim. In this approach, the issuer of a CWT declares that the > --- >> member. In this approach, the issuer of a CWT declares that the > 302c305 > < of the key by including a "ckt" claim in the CWT.</t> > --- >> of the key by including a "ckt" CWT confirmation method member in the >> CWT.</t> > 304c307 > < <t>The following example demonstrates the use of the "ckt" claim > --- >> <t>The following example demonstrates the use of the "ckt" member > 319,320c322,323 > < <t><xref target="IANA"/> registers the "ckt" claim and the > confirmation method. > < The "ckt" claim is expected to be used in the "cnf" claim.</t> > --- >> <t><xref target="IANA"/> registers the "ckt" CWT confirmation method >> member. >> The "ckt" member is used in the "cnf" claim.</t> > 510a514 >> <xi:include >> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7800.xml%22/> > On Dec 4, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Orie and *Paul (AD), > > We have updated the text with your additional suggested edits; the changes > are now reflected in our files (links below). We now await approvals from > Hannes and Paul. > > *Paul, please review the following changes and let us know if you approve. > The updates can also be viewed here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html. > > 1) Section 5.1 > > OLD: > The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the essential parameters required > to represent the key as a COSE Key, rather than any additional data that > might accompany the key. > > NEW: > The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the ordered essential > parameters needed to represent a COSE Key, with all other > parameters excluded. > > ... > 2) Section 5.3 > > OLD: > Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key can > use the COSE Key Thumbprint. > > NEW: > The only prerequisites are that the COSE_Key representation > of the key be defined and the party creating the COSE Key Thumbprint > be in possession of the necessary key material. > > … > 3) Addition of Section 5.5 > > NEW: > 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints > > The ckt of a COSE Key, as described in Section 7 of [RFC9052], and the jkt > of a JSON Web Key, > as described in Section 4 of RFC 7517, are different even when the > underlying cryptographic > key material is the same. > > This document does not register a JWT claim for using ckt as a confirmation > method for a JWT or a CWT claim for using jkt as a confirmation method for > a CWT. > > … > 4) Section 8 > > OLD: > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt > > NEW: > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: (none) > > > —FILES (please refresh)— > > The updated XML file is here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.xml > > The updated output files are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html > > This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html > > These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html > > This diff file shows all changes made to date: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/kc > > >> On Dec 4, 2024, at 7:26 AM, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: >> >> Thank you! >> >> "cose key" should be "COSE Key", >> >> We could add "COSE Key as described in Section 7 of RFC9052" and "JSON Web >> Key, as described in Section 4 of RFC7517" >> >> If the citations are helpful... This is a style nit. >> >> I approve of the changes. >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:48 PM Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: >> Authors, >> >> Thank you for the discussion and suggested changes. Our files now reflect >> the updates below (see >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html> for a snapshot >> of the changes). Please review and let us know if these changes are >> agreeable or if any further updates are needed. We will then ask the AD to >> approve them. >> >> 1) Section 5.3 >> >> OLD: >> Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key can >> use the COSE Key Thumbprint. >> >> NEW: >> The only prerequisites are that the COSE_Key representation >> of the key be defined and the party creating the COSE Key Thumbprint >> be in possession of the necessary key material. >> >> ... >> 2) Addition of New Section. Note that we made “json web key” uppercase for >> consistency. >> >> NEW: >> 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints >> >> The ckt of a cose key and jkt of a JSON Web Key are different, even when >> underlying cryptographic key material is the same. >> >> This document does not register a JWT claim for using ckt as a confirmation >> method for a JWT or a CWT claim for using jkt as a confirmation method for >> a CWT. >> >> ... >> 3) Section 8 >> >> OLD: >> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >> JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt >> >> NEW: >> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >> JWT Confirmation Method Name: (none) >> >> >> —FILES (please refresh)— >> >> The updated XML file is here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.xml >> >> The updated output files are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html >> >> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html >> >> These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html >> >> This diff file shows all changes made to date: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/kc >> >>> On Dec 3, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the insightful comment, Orie. I agree with your proposed edits >>> for the IANA consideration section and the extra text before the section on >>> relationship to certificate thumbprints. >>> >>> I am also fine with the additional text Mike proposed. >>> >>> It is indeed too late to add new functionality at this point in time. >>> >>> Ciao >>> Hannes >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> I support adding the section that Orie proposed. >>> >>> >>> >>> However in reviewing related text, I unfortunately found a problem. >>> Reading >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06#section-5.3, >>> it differs from https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7638#section-3.5 in a >>> counterproductive and overly restrictive way. Please change: >>> >>> >>> >>> Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key can >>> >>> use the COSE Key Thumbprint. >>> >>> >>> >>> to: >>> >>> >>> >>> The only prerequisites are that the COSE_Key representation >>> >>> of the key be defined and the party creating the COSE Key Thumbprint >>> >>> be in possession of the necessary key material. >>> >>> >>> >>> That way it will be more actionable and will parallel the corresponding RFC >>> 7638 text. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks all, >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> >>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 5:55 PM >>> To: Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> >>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com>; Hannes Tschofenig >>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Isobe >>> Kohei <isobeko...@gmail.com>; cose-...@ietf.org; Cose Chairs Wg >>> <cose-cha...@ietf.org>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; auth48archive >>> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for >>> your review >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's add a section to the document, before the section on relationship to >>> certificate thumbprints. >>> >>> >>> >>> 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints >>> >>> >>> >>> The ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, even when >>> underlying cryptographic key material is the same. >>> >>> >>> >>> This document does not register a JWT claim for using ckt as a confirmation >>> method for a JWT, or a CWT claim for using jkt as a confirmation method for >>> a CWT. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 6:26 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: >>> >>> I agree, let's just stick with the simple (none) solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hannes can you approve or suggest changes to the clarifying text that makes >>> it clear this is not an oversight? >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike, do you object to that clarifying text assuming we take you change to >>> the IANA considerations section? >>> >>> >>> >>> OS >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 5:56 PM Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I’m either fine with Orie’s proposed change to the registration wording or >>> the following one: >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt >>> >>> To: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: (none) >>> >>> For the record, I’m not OK trying to add a ckt JWT “cnf” method as an >>> AUTH48 action (despite me appreciating Orie’s discussion of the >>> possibility). >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> >>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 2:55 PM >>> To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>; RFC Editor >>> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Isobe Kohei <isobeko...@gmail.com>; >>> cose-...@ietf.org; Cose Chairs Wg <cose-cha...@ietf.org>; Michael Jones >>> <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for >>> your review >>> >>> >>> >>> This is indeed a bug, for extra assurance that it is a problem: >>> >>> How would you use a ckt to verify a JWT that was using "cnf"? >>> >>> Here is a more complete fix for the bug: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06#section-5.3 >>> >>> Note that the ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, >>> even when underlying cryptographic key material is the same. >>> >>> ckt is a binary string and jkt is always a base64url string encoded as >>> described in section 6.1 of RFC9449. >>> To use a ckt claim inside a JWT, the ckt claim value MUST be base64url >>> encoded. >>> The example provided in section 6.1 of RFC9449 is modified to distinguish >>> confirmation with a CKT instead of JKT: >>> { >>> "sub":"some...@example.com", >>> "iss":"https://server.example.com";, >>> "nbf":1562262611, >>> "exp":1562266216, >>> "cnf": { >>> "ckt":"SWvYr63zB-WwjGSwQhv53AFSijRKQ72oj63RZp2iU-w" >>> } >>> } >>> >>> I used the same base64url encoded thumbprint the draft already used for >>> extra clarity. >>> >>> ckt would also need to be added here: >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#confirmation-methods >>> >>> This kind of change might need to be taken to the relevant lists for >>> review... and maybe another WGLC. >>> >>> ... we could leave the "ckt" in JWT cnf registration to another document, >>> but I think at a minimum we need something added to section 5.3 to the >>> effect of: >>> >>> Note that the ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, >>> even when underlying cryptographic key material is the same. >>> ckt is a binary string and jkt is always a base64url string encoded as >>> described in section 6.1 of RFC9449. >>> >>> ^ If we are comfortable with this change alone, we still have a problem >>> with the registration template: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8747.html#name-registration-template >>> >>> """ >>> CWT claims should normally have a corresponding JWT claim. If a >>> corresponding JWT claim would not make sense, the designated experts can >>> choose to accept registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as >>> "N/A". >>> """ >>> >>> The logical JWT claim is "ckt"... not "jkt"... so N/A... does not make >>> sense... and leaving it blank also does not make sense. >>> >>> There is also the x5t claim which sets the precedent that ckt is for cose >>> key, jkt is for json web key, and x5t is for x.509 certs. >>> >>> I propose: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt >>> >>> To: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: Not assigned by RFCXXXX ( not to be >>> confused with x5t or jkt ) >>> >>> >>> OS >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM Hannes Tschofenig >>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the work on the draft and sorry for the slow response. >>> >>> >>> >>> I read through the draft carefully today and in general the edits look good >>> but I noticed a possible bug. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the IANA consideration section we say that the ckt confirmation method >>> maps to the jkt JWT configuration method. I double-checked RFC 9449, which >>> defines the jkt, and it defines the computation as follows: >>> >>> " >>> The value of the jkt member MUST be the base64url encoding >>> >>> of the JWK SHA-256 Thumbprint. >>> " >>> >>> In draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06 we define the ckt thumbprint as the >>> hash of the deterministic encoding of the COSE_Key structure. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, the question to me is whether we can even map the ckt to the jkt since >>> the underlying structure that is hashed is different: JWK vs. COSE_Key >>> structure. >>> >>> >>> >>> For that reason I believe it would be more correct to change the IANA >>> consideration section by omitting the JWT Confirmation Method Name. >>> >>> Here is the proposed change: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt >>> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint >>> JWT Confirmation Method Name: >>> >>> >>> Do you agree with me? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry for noticing this issue only now. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ciao >>> >>> Hannes >>> >>> >>> >>> Betreff: >>> >>> AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for your review >>> >>> Datum: >>> >>> Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) >>> >>> Von: >>> >>> rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org >>> >>> An: >>> >>> isobeko...@gmail.com, hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net, orie@transmute.industries >>> >>> Kopie (CC): >>> >>> rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, cose-...@ietf.org, cose-cha...@ietf.org, >>> michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com, paul.wout...@aiven.io, >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>> >>> >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2024/10/21 >>> >>> 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/rfc9679.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9679 (draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06) >>> >>> Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint >>> Author(s) : K. Isobe, H. Tschofenig, O. Steele >>> WG Chair(s) : Matthew A. Miller, Ivaylo Petrov, Michael B. Jones >>> >>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> ORIE STEELE >>> Chief Technology Officer >>> www.transmute.industries >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ORIE STEELE >> Chief Technology Officer >> www.transmute.industries >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
