Hi there, I have no idea, my email account is perfectly fine and I do receive ietf notifications. Yet if that's really an issue you may use fabien.imba...@gmail.com if needed.
Best regards Fabien On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, 21:06 Justin Richer, <jric...@mit.edu> wrote: > 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
