Hi Karen, This happened recently with RFC9635 (GNAP Core), so I’m CC’ing his other known address as I know he’ll need to approve as well.
Fabien, any idea what’s going on here, and should we update the contact info on the draft? — Justin > On Apr 14, 2025, at 2:34 PM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > We received a bounced message for fabien.imba...@acert.io. Do you happen to > know if Fabien has a new email address? > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/kc > >> On Apr 14, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Justin, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated our files accordingly. Please >> review and let us know if any further changes are needed or if you approve >> the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author >> prior to moving forward in the publication process. >> >> --FILES-- >> >> The updated XML file is here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.xml >> >> The updated output files are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.html >> >> These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> These diff files show all changes made to date: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfcXXXX-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >> most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure >> satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9767 >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/kc >> >> >>> On Apr 11, 2025, at 2:14 PM, Justin Richer via auth48archive >>> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 10, 2025, at 2:58 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>> >>>> Authors, >>>> >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>> >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) <!--[rfced] We changed this paragraph into smaller sentences >>>> for easier reading and arranged the list of items in alphabetical >>>> order. Please let us know of any objections. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> Terminology specific to GNAP is defined in the terminology section of >>>> the core specification [GNAP], and provides definitions for the >>>> protocol roles: authorization server (AS), client, resource server >>>> (RS), resource owner (RO), end user; as well as the protocol elements: >>>> attribute, access token, grant, privilege, protected resource, right, >>>> subject, subject information. The same definitions are used in this >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> Terminology specific to GNAP is defined in the terminology section of >>>> the core specification [GNAP]. The following protocol roles are >>>> defined: authorization server (AS), client, end user, resource owner (RO), >>>> and resource server (RS). The following protocol elements are defined: >>>> access token, attribute, grant, privilege, protected resource, right, >>>> subject, and subject information. The same definitions are used in this >>>> document. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> This change is fine. >>> >>>> >>>> 3) <!--[rfced] To avoid the "[JWT]" citation being used as an adjective, >>>> may we update "[JWT] formatted token" to "JSON-formatted token >>>> [JWT]" or "JSON Web Token [JWT]" or otherwise? Note that there are >>>> 9 instances in the document. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> In a [JWT] formatted token or a token introspection response, this >>>> corresponds to the iss claim. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> In a JSON-formatted token [JWT] or a token introspection response, >>>> this corresponds to the iss claim. >>>> >>>> Or: >>>> In a JSON Web Token [JWT] or a token introspection response, >>>> this corresponds to the iss claim. >>>> --> >>> >>> Let’s go with: >>> >>> In the payload of a JSON Web Token [JWT] or a token introspection response, >>> this corresponds to the iss claim. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated the following text for clarity and to make >>>> the second sentence a complete sentence. Please review whether the >>>> updates are accurate. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> GNAP access tokens can have multiple data flags associated with them >>>> that indicate special processing or considerations for the token. >>>> For example, whether the token is a bearer token, or should be >>>> expected to be durable across grant updates. >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> GNAP access tokens can have multiple associated data flags that >>>> indicate special processing or considerations for a token. For >>>> example, the data flags can indicate whether a token is a bearer >>>> token or should be expected to be durable across grant updates. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> The change is fine. >>> >>>> >>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We updated "RS's" to "one or more RSs" in the following >>>> text. We also updated "from others usable at" to "from other >>>> access tokens used at" in the first paragraph for consistency >>>> with the second paragraph. Please let us know if any of these >>>> changes are not correct. >>>> >>>> In addition, please review the remaining instances of "RS's" and "AS's" >>>> (singular possessive) throughout the document and let us know if any >>>> occurrences are intended to be plural. We have updated a few instances, >>>> e.g., "targeted to different RS's" -> "targeted to different RSs". >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> When an access token is used for the grant continuation API defined >>>> in Section 5 of [GNAP] (the continuation access token) the token >>>> management API defined in Section 6 of [GNAP] (the token management >>>> access token), or the RS-facing API defined in Section 3 (the >>>> resource server management access token), the AS MUST separate these >>>> access tokens from others usable at RS's. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> For continuation access tokens and token management access tokens, a >>>> client instance MUST take steps to differentiate these special- >>>> purpose access tokens from access tokens used at RS's. >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> When an access token is used for the grant continuation API defined >>>> in Section 5 of [GNAP] (the continuation access token), the token >>>> management API defined in Section 6 of [GNAP] (the token management >>>> access token), or the RS-facing API defined in Section 3 (the >>>> resource server management access token), the AS MUST separate these >>>> access tokens from other access tokens used at one or more RSs. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> For continuation access tokens and token management access tokens, a >>>> client instance MUST take steps to differentiate these special- >>>> purpose access tokens from access tokens used at one or more RSs. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> These changes are fine. >>> >>>> >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] [GNAP] does not contain Section 3.1.2. Please let us know >>>> which section was intended (perhaps Section 3.2.1 ("Single Access >>>> Token"). >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> The client instance is given token management access tokens only >>>> as part of the manage field of the grant response in Section 3.1.2 >>>> of [GNAP]. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, the reference was intended to be section 3.2.1 as this defines the >>> “manage” field that is referenced here. >>> >>>> >>>> 7) <!--[rfced] In the lists in Sections 3.1 and 3.5, we note that the key >>>> words (REQUIRED, OPTIONAL, etc.) are included at the end of the >>>> descriptions whereas the key words are included at the beginning >>>> of the descriptions in all other relevant sections. Would you >>>> like to make these consistent by updating Sections 3.1 and 3.5 as >>>> shown in the example below? >>>> >>>> One example >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): A list of token formats >>>> supported by this AS. The values in this list MUST be registered >>>> in the "GNAP Token Format Registry Formats" registry in Section 5.3. >>>> OPTIONAL. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): OPTIONAL. A list of token >>>> formats supported by this AS. The values in this list MUST be >>>> registered in the "GNAP Token Format Registry Formats" registry per >>>> Section 5.3. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> In the companion specification, RFC9646, we seem to have usually put the >>> keywords at the end on the lists, so I think we should instead update the >>> lists in sections 3.3 (two lists) and 3.4 (two lists) to make them all >>> consistent with the normative requirements at the end. >>> >>>> >>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Please note the mismatch here between >>>> "array of strings" vs. "string". >>>> >>>> As both of these seem to be regarding the "GNAP Resource Set Registration >>>> Request Parameters" registry (as opposed to the "GNAP RS-Facing Discovery >>>> Document Fields" registry), should Section 3.4 be updated to "string" to >>>> match >>>> the registry? >>>> >>>> Section 3.4 >>>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): >>>> >>>> vs. >>>> >>>> Section 5.6.2: >>>> token_formats_supported | string | Section 3.4 >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> Section 5.6.2 should be updated to be “array of strings” and the >>> corresponding entry in the IANA registry will need to be updated as well >>> (it currently is registered as “string” at >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/gnap.xhtml#gnap-resource-set-registration-request-parameters >>> >>>> >>>> 9) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing the following text (are some >>>> words missing?). Please let us know how we may update this >>>> sentence for clarity. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): OPTIONAL. The token >>>> formats the RS is able to process for accessing the resource. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): OPTIONAL. The list of >>>> token formats the RS is able to process in order to access the >>>> resources. >>>> --> >>> >>> >>> We can simplify to: >>> >>> token_formats_supported (array of strings): OPTIONAL. The list of >>> token formats that the RS is able to process. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 10) <!--[rfced] We note "HTTP 400 Bad Request error" vs. "HTTP (Bad >>>> Request) status code". Should this perhaps be updated as "HTTP >>>> 400 (Bad Request) error code" for consistency as shown below? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> If the registration fails, the AS returns an HTTP 400 Bad Request >>>> error to the RS indicating that the registration was not successful. >>>> >>>> In the case of an error from the RS-facing API, the AS responds to >>>> the RS with an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code and a JSON object >>>> consisting of a single error field, which is either an object or a >>>> string. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> If the registration fails, the AS returns an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) >>>> error code to the RS indicating that the registration was not >>>> successful. >>>> >>>> In the case of an error from the RS-facing API, the AS responds to >>>> the RS with an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) error code and a JSON object >>>> consisting of a single error field, which is either an object or a >>>> string. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> From my understanding of the HTTP style guidelines, these instances should >>> be: >>> >>> … returns HTTP status code 400 (Bad Request) to the RS ... >>> >>> … the RS with HTTP status code 400 (Bad Request) and a … >>> >>>> >>>> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI, for the sourcecode element in Section 4, >>>> two spaces were removed from the left side of the access_token >>>> so that it fits the line-length restriction. Please let us know >>>> if you prefer otherwise. >>>> >>>> This line was previously too long: >>>> "existing_access_token": "OS9M2PMHKUR64TB8N6BW7OZB8CDFONP219RP1LT0" >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> I don’t actually see this change in the source or in the rendered text, but >>> as long as it does not change the relative indentation/formatting of the >>> JSON element in the HTTP request, that should be fine. We can also shave a >>> few characters off of the access token value without affecting the utility >>> of the example. If we do this, we should also change the value in section >>> 3.3 — even though the examples are not directly connected to each other, it >>> was intentional that they use a consistent value. >>> >>>> >>>> 12) <!--[rfced] Regarding variations of "string/object" >>>> in the "GNAP Token Introspection Request" registry. >>>> >>>> a) In Table 2 (which corresponds to >>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/gnap.xhtml#gnap-token-introspection-request) >>>> would you like to change this type from >>>> "object/string" to "string/object" to match the form of the subsequent >>>> item? >>>> If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> resource_server object/string Section 3.3 of RFC xxxx >>>> >>>> access array of strings/objects Section 3.3 of RFC xxxx >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> resource_server string/object Section 3.3 of RFC 9767 >>>> >>>> access array of strings/objects Section 3.3 of RFC 9767 >>> >>> No, this should remain as written, “object/string” and “array of >>> strings/objects”. >>> >>>> >>>> b) Similarly, in Section 3.3, would you like to change >>>> "string or object" to "string/object"? >>>> (Note: If you decide not to change the original "object/string" above, >>>> then we will update "string or object" to "object/string" to >>>> match.) >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> resource_server (string or object): REQUIRED. ... >>>> >>>> access (array of strings/objects): OPTIONAL. ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> resource_server (string/object): REQUIRED. ... >>>> >>>> access (array of strings/objects): OPTIONAL. ... >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> This should be: >>> >>> resource_server (object/string): ... >>> >>> And the IANA registry should be updated. >>> >>>> >>>> 13) <!--[rfced] Regarding variations of "string/object" >>>> in the "GNAP Token Introspection Response" >>>> and "GNAP Resource Set Registration Request Parameters" registries. >>>> >>>> a) In Table 3, would you like to change "object/string" >>>> to "string/object" to match usage in the preceding item? >>>> If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry >>>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/gnap.xhtml#gnap-token-introspection-response) >>>> accordingly. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> | access | array of strings/objects | Section 3.3 of RFC xxxx | >>>> | key | object/string | Section 3.3 of RFC xxxx | >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> | access | array of strings/objects | Section 3.3 of RFC 9767 | >>>> | key | string/object | Section 3.3 of RFC 9767 | >>>> >>>> >>>> b) Similarly, in Section 3.3, would you like to change "object/string" >>>> to "string/object" to match usage in the preceding item? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> key (object/string): REQUIRED if ... >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> key (string/object): REQUIRED if ... >>>> >>> >>> No, these should remain “object/string” and “array of strings/objects” as >>> written. >>> >>>> >>>> c) With the same rationale, in Section 3.4 (and Table 4), would you like >>>> to change this as follows? If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry >>>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap/gnap.xhtml#gnap-resource-set-registration-request-parameters) >>>> accordingly. >>>> >>>> Original: resource_server (string or object) >>>> >>>> Perhaps: resource_server (string/object) >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> This should be: >>> >>> resource_server (object/string) >>> >>> >>> as above. The IANA registry should be updated accordingly. >>> >>>> >>>> 14) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> The contents of the access token model divulge to the RS information >>>> about the access token's context and rights. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> The contents of the access token model, which contains information >>>> about the access token's context and rights, are divulged to the RS. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps instead: >>> >>> The contents of the access token model divulge information about the access >>> token’s context and rights to the RS. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 15) <!--[rfced] Would using "certain circumstances" in place of "limited >>>> circumstances" be better to avoid the redundancy of "limiting" and >>>> "limited" as shown below? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> Furthermore, limiting the use of bearer tokens and AS-provided keys >>>> to only highly trusted AS's ASs and limited circumstances prevents the >>>> attacker from being able to willingly exfiltrate their token to an >>>> unsuspecting client instance. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> Furthermore, limiting the use of bearer tokens and AS-provided keys >>>> to only highly trusted ASs and certain circumstances prevents the >>>> attacker from being able to willingly exfiltrate their token to an >>>> unsuspecting client instance. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> I think instead we can say: >>> >>> Furthermore, limiting the use of bearer tokens and AS-provided keys >>> to only highly trusted ASs in certain circumstances prevents the >>> attacker from being able to willingly exfiltrate their token to an >>> unsuspecting client instance. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] The URL <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/ >>>> ndss-2014-programme/macaroons-cookies-contextual-caveats- >>>> decentralized-authorization-cloud/> provides an open-access link >>>> to this symposium paper and is where the DOI for this paper >>>> directs. May we replace the original URL with this URL as >>>> shown below? >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> [MACAROON] Birgisson, A., Politz, J. G., Erlingsson, U., Taly, A., >>>> Vrable, M., and M. Lentczner, "Macaroons: Cookies with >>>> Contextual Caveats for Decentralized Authorization in the >>>> Cloud", NDSS Symposium 2014, DOI 10.14722/ndss.2014.23212, >>>> February 2014, <https://research.google/pubs/pub41892/>. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> [MACAROON] Birgisson, A., Politz, J. G., Erlingsson, U., Taly, A., >>>> Vrable, M., and M. Lentczner, "Macaroons: Cookies with >>>> Contextual Caveats for Decentralized Authorization in the >>>> Cloud", NDSS Symposium 2014, DOI 10.14722/ndss.2014.23212, >>>> February 2014, <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/ >>>> ndss-2014-programme/macaroons-cookies-contextual-caveats- >>>> decentralized-authorization-cloud/>. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> This change is fine - whatever the best URL is for the reference. I am not >>> able to find another RFC that references the Macaroon format. >>> >>>> >>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] FYI: To match other usage in the document, we updated the >>>> first >>>> artwork element in Section 3.2 to sourcecode and set the type to >>>> "http-message". Please let us know if we need to update otherwise. >>>> >>>> Additionally, please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element >>>> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred >>>> values for "type" >>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) >>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. >>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, these look good. >>> >>>> >>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review usage of <tt> and <em> in this document >>>> and let us know if any updates are needed. >>>> >>>> In the HTML and PDF outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is output >>>> in fixed-width font. In the TXT output, there are no changes to the font, >>>> and quotation marks are not generated. >>>> >>>> In the HTML and PDF outputs, the text enclosed in <em> is output in >>>> italics. In the TXT output, the text enclosed in <em> appears with an >>>> underscore before and after. This is used only in Section 2.1.1. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, these look good. >>> >>>> >>>> 19) <!-- [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. >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> I believe we have followed best practice for this language. >>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> RFC Editor/kc/ar >>>> >>> >>> >>> I believe with these changes implemented we should be ready to publish. >>> >>> — Justin >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 10, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>> >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>> >>>> Updated 2025/04/10 >>>> >>>> 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/rfc9767.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767.txt >>>> >>>> Diff file of the text: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>> >>>> Diff of the XML: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-xmldiff1.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Tracking progress >>>> ----------------- >>>> >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9767 >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>> >>>> RFC Editor >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC9767 (draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09) >>>> >>>> Title : Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol Resource >>>> Server Connections >>>> Author(s) : J. Richer, Ed., F. Imbault >>>> WG Chair(s) : Yaron Sheffer, Leif Johansson >>>> 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 >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
