I concur Phil
> On Apr 15, 2025, at 10:09 PM, Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Thank you, Lynne. Please record in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9728 that I approve of the publication > of the current draft as RFC 9728. > > Phil, Aaron, do you concur? > > Thanks all, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:33 AM > To: Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> > Cc: Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com>; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; > phil.h...@yahoo.com; oauth-...@ietf.org; oauth-cha...@ietf.org; > rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com; Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 <draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13> > for your review > > Hi, Mike. Thanks for your replies! We have updated this document per your > notes below. > > Apologies for the missing space before the email address; thank you for > catching that! > > We also removed the "<!-- [rfced] " comment. (We'd left it in until the > remaining part of the question was addressed, so that it wouldn't fall > through the cracks.) > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-xmldiff2.html > > Thanks again! > > RFC Editor/lb > > >> On Apr 14, 2025, at 5:45 PM, Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Aaron and talked about my WWW-Authenticate response suggestion, based on >> that conversation, we'd like to change what I wrote below on that topic. >> >> Rather, let's leave the example as it currently is: >> HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized >> WWW-Authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata= >> "https://resource.example.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource"; >> >> Also, we agree with this this suggestion that you made. Please apply it. >> >> Change: >> The HTTP status code and error string in the example response above >> are defined by <xref target="RFC6750"/>. >> to: >> The HTTP status code in the example response above >> are defined by <xref target="RFC6750"/>. >> >> Aaron agrees with the rest of my suggestions. We look forward reviewing the >> next iteration. >> >> Thanks again! >> -- Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Jones >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 5:29 PM >> To: 'Lynne Bartholomew' <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; Aaron Parecki >> <aa...@parecki.com> >> Cc: 'rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org' <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; >> 'phil.h...@yahoo.com' <phil.h...@yahoo.com>; 'oauth-...@ietf.org' >> <oauth-...@ietf.org>; 'oauth-cha...@ietf.org' <oauth-cha...@ietf.org>; >> 'rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com' <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>; 'Deb Cooley' >> <debcool...@gmail.com>; 'auth48archive@rfc-editor.org' >> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 <draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13> >> for your review >> >> Resending including Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com>, since apparently >> <aaron=40parecki....@dmarc.ietf.org> didn't reach him. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Jones >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 2:55 PM >> To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; Aaron Parecki >> <aaron=40parecki....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; phil.h...@yahoo.com; oauth-...@ietf.org; >> oauth-cha...@ietf.org; rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com; Deb Cooley >> <debcool...@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 <draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13> >> for your review >> >> Thanks, Lynne. My responses to your questions are inline below, prefixed by >> "Mike>". >> >> Reading the auth48diff, I also noticed a missing space before the e-mail >> address in the text "Registration requests should be sent >> to<oauth-ext-rev...@ietf.org>". >> >> Thanks again! >> -- Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 1:35 PM >> To: Aaron Parecki <aaron=40parecki....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com; >> phil.h...@yahoo.com; oauth-...@ietf.org; oauth-cha...@ietf.org; >> rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com; Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com>; >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 <draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13> >> for your review >> >> Hi, Aaron. >> >> Thank you for your replies to our questions! >> >> We have three follow-up items for you: >> >> * Regarding this question and your reply: >> >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and 2: We had trouble determining what >>>> "for instance" refers to in these sentences. For example, in the >>>> first sentence listed below, we do not see any mention of "jwks_uri" >>>> in [FAPI.MessageSigning] (although we see "jwks_uri" >>>> in Section 2 of this document as well as RFCs 7591, 7592, 8414, 8705, >>>> 8725, 9068, 9700, and 9701, but [FAPI.MessageSigning] does not >>>> mention any of these published RFCs, except for one mention of RFC >>>> 8705 ("This is outside of the scope of both [RFC8705] and the FAPI >>>> standards")). Could these sentences be reworded to make them >>>> clearer? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> These values may be >>>> used by other specifications, such as the jwks_uri used to publish >>>> public keys the resource server uses to sign resource responses, for >>>> instance, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>>> ... >>>> JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing >>>> algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource >>>> for signing resource responses, for instance, as described in >>>> [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>>> >>>> Possibly: >>>> These values may be >>>> used by other specifications, such as the jwks_uri (see Section 2) >>>> used to publish public keys the resource server uses to sign >>>> resource responses, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>>> ... >>>> JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing >>>> algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource >>>> for signing resource responses - for instance, as described in >>>> [FAPI.MessageSigning]. --> >>>> >>> Please use this wording, as we identified another ambiguity in the previous >>> wording: >>> >>> These values, such as the <tt>jwks_uri</tt> (see Section 2), may be >>> used with other specifications; for example, the public keys published >>> in the <tt>jwks_uri</tt> can be used to verify the signed resource >>> responses, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >> >> We updated the "These values ..." sentence per your note. How may we update >> the following? >> >>> JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing >>> algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource >>> for signing resource responses, for instance, as described in >>> [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >> >> Mike> I noticed that you already applied <tt> to the alg here (good). I >> think the text above is already fine. Aaron? >> >> = = = = = >> >> * Regarding this question and your reply: >> >>>> 26) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >>>> the online Style Guide at >>>> <https://www/ >>>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05% >>>> 7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaa >>>> aaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201581579%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB >>>> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >>>> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RknoutA0DIyLk5oQFgLqFA7Faoi4nx%2B >>>> yISVZxRP0Xm8%3D&reserved=0>, and let us know if any changes are >>>> needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise >>>> language, which is helpful for readers. >>>> >>>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >>>> >>>> man-in-the-middle --> >>> >>> We believe “man-in-the-middle” can be removed from the sentence without >>> affecting its meaning. Please do so. >> >> >> "man-in-the-middle" was used in both Section 7.3 and Section 7.6. We >> removed both instances. Please review, and let us know if either sentence >> should be clarified. For example, in Section 7.3, is it correct to now >> refer to one form of attack instead of two? >> >> Not sure if it helps, but some authors have replaced "man-in-the-middle" >> with "on-path". >> >> Mike> Actually, let's replace both former uses of man-in-the-middle with >> adversary-in-the-middle, which apparently NIST is using. >> >> = = = = = >> >> * Regarding this update: >> >>> In this review, we also identified a mistake in an example. Please >>> update the example in Section 5.1 as described in this pull request: >>> https://githu/ >>> b.com%2Foauth-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata%2Fpull%2F65%2Ffi >>> les&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f64 >>> 0afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201602007%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >>> 3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo >>> iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xCCE8Lb9ZtREL2DAZccrDG5NG >>> N7Ph0HQQinP0rCgV90%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> (Lines 892-895 replaced with the below) >>> >>> HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized >>> WWW-Authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata= >> >> Because the new "401" entry doesn't appear to include an error string, >> should the paragraph that follows it be removed? >> >> Mike> Actually, let's restore the "error" and "error_description" >> parameters, so that the entry becomes: >> HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized >> WWW-Authenticate: Bearer error="invalid_request", >> error_description="No access token was provided in this request", >> resource_metadata= >> "https://resource.example.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource"; >> >> Currently: >> >> HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized >> WWW-Authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata= >> "https://resource.example.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource"; >> >> The HTTP status code and error string in the example response above are >> defined by [RFC6750]. >> >> = = = = = >> >> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-xmldiff1.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-xmldiff2.html >> >> Thanks again! >> >> RFC Editor/lb >> >> >>>> On Apr 11, 2025, at 2:18 PM, Aaron Parecki >>>> <aaron=40parecki....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 4:00 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] Section 1: This sentence does not parse. As it >>> appears that "then fetch" means "then the client fetches", may we >>> update as suggested below? >>> >>> Original: >>> In other cases, it may be >>> dynamically discovered; for example, a user could enter their email >>> address into an email client, the client could perform WebFinger >>> [RFC7033] discovery (in a manner related to the description in >>> Section 2 of "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0" [OpenID.Discovery]) to >>> find the resource server, then fetch the resource server metadata to >>> find the authorization server to use to obtain authorization to >>> access the user's email. >>> >>> Suggested: >>> In >>> other cases, it may be dynamically discovered; for example, a user >>> could enter their email address into an email client, the client >>> could perform WebFinger discovery [RFC7033] (in a manner related to >>> the description in Section 2 of [OpenID.Discovery]) to find the >>> resource server, and the client could then fetch the resource server >>> metadata to find the authorization server to use to obtain >>> authorization to access the user's email. --> >>> >>> Agreed, thanks for the suggested text. >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: We changed "Software Statement" to >>> "software statement" per the text of RFC 7591 and changed "Dynamic >>> Client Registration" to "dynamic client registration" per RFCs 7591, >>> 9700, and 9701. Please let us know any objections. >>> >>> Original: >>> This is >>> analogous to the role that the Software Statement plays in OAuth >>> Dynamic Client Registration [RFC7591]. >>> >>> Currently: >>> This is >>> analogous to the role that the software statement plays in OAuth >>> dynamic client registration [RFC7591]. --> >>> >>> We agree with lowercase "software statement", but "Dynamic Client >>> Registration" should be capitalized, as it's the name of RFC 7591. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: We had trouble parsing this sentence. We >>> removed the comma before "but that" to clarify that "that" refers to >>> attacker-generated metadata and is not used as a noun. If this update >>> is incorrect, please clarify what "but that" refers to. >>> >>> Original: >>> This prevents attackers from publishing metadata supposedly >>> describing the protected resource, but that is not actually >>> authoritative for the protected resource, as described in Section >>> 7.3. >>> >>> Currently: >>> This prevents attackers from publishing metadata that supposedly >>> describes the protected resource but that is not actually >>> authoritative for the protected resource, as described in Section >>> 7.3. --> >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and subsequent: Please review and advise >>> regarding the usage of "<tt>" for certain values and parameters as >>> listed in the XML file for this document. For example, we see >>> 2 instances of (OAuth 2.0) "<tt>scope</tt> values" and 1 instance of >>> "scope values". Should usage be consistent? Also, please review the >>> parameters listed in Sections 2 and 8.1.2; no <tt>s for parameters >>> listed in Section 2, but parameters listed in Section 8.1.2 (except >>> for "signed_metadata"; see below) are enclosed in <tt>s. >>> >>> A few more examples: >>> "alg values": 2 instances with <tt>, 2 without GET ("<tt>GET</tt> >>> request" vs. "the GET") <dt>Metadata >>> Name:</dt><dd>signed_metadata</dd> (Section 8.1.2) >>> (All other parameter names in Section 8.1.2 that follow >>> "Metadata Name: " are enclosed in <tt>s.) --> >>> >>> >>> We intend to call out parameter names with <tt>, but not use that markup >>> when referring to the concept. So in the case of all 3 occurrences of >>> "scope values", these are not referring to the parameter names so the <tt> >>> should be removed. >>> >>> For "alg values", "alg" is a parameter name in JWT, so that should always >>> be wrapped in <tt>. >>> >>> The instance of "the GET" should be corrected to "the <tt>GET</tt> request". >>> >>> "signed_metadata" is missing the <tt> wrapper as well. >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1 and 2: We had trouble determining what >>> "for instance" refers to in these sentences. For example, in the >>> first sentence listed below, we do not see any mention of "jwks_uri" >>> in [FAPI.MessageSigning] (although we see "jwks_uri" >>> in Section 2 of this document as well as RFCs 7591, 7592, 8414, 8705, >>> 8725, 9068, 9700, and 9701, but [FAPI.MessageSigning] does not mention >>> any of these published RFCs, except for one mention of RFC 8705 ("This >>> is outside of the scope of both [RFC8705] and the FAPI standards")). >>> Could these sentences be reworded to make them clearer? >>> >>> Original: >>> These values may be >>> used by other specifications, such as the jwks_uri used to publish >>> public keys the resource server uses to sign resource responses, for >>> instance, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>> ... >>> JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing >>> algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource >>> for signing resource responses, for instance, as described in >>> [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>> >>> Possibly: >>> These values may be >>> used by other specifications, such as the jwks_uri (see Section 2) >>> used to publish public keys the resource server uses to sign resource >>> responses, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>> ... >>> JSON array containing a list of the JWS [JWS] signing >>> algorithms (alg values) [JWA] supported by the protected resource >>> for signing resource responses - for instance, as described in >>> [FAPI.MessageSigning]. --> >>> >>> Please use this wording, as we identified another ambiguity in the previous >>> wording: >>> >>> These values, such as the <tt>jwks_uri</tt> (see Section 2), may be >>> used with other specifications; for example, the public keys published >>> in the <tt>jwks_uri</tt> can be used to verify the signed resource >>> responses, as described in [FAPI.MessageSigning]. >>> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.1: "uses of ... utilize", which also means >>> "uses of ... uses", read oddly. We changed "uses of" to "applications >>> of". Please let us know any objections. >>> >>> Original: >>> All uses of JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] and JSON Web Encryption >>> (JWE) [JWE] data structures in this specification utilize the JWS >>> Compact Serialization or the JWE Compact Serialization; the JWS JSON >>> Serialization and the JWE JSON Serialization are not used. >>> >>> Currently: >>> All applications of JSON Web Signature (JWS) data structures [JWS] >>> and JSON Web Encryption (JWE) data structures [JWE] as discussed in >>> this specification utilize the JWS Compact Serialization or the JWE >>> Compact Serialization; the JWS JSON Serialization and the JWE JSON >>> Serialization are not used. --> >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: This text says "This specification uses >>> the terms ...", but except for a few terms (e.g., "Client >>> Authentication" (only used in the title of Section 5.3), "Claim Name", >>> "Authorization Code"), we could not find any instances of the >>> following terms anywhere in the text: >>> Authorization Endpoint, Authorization Grant, Client Secret, Grant >>> Type, Redirection URI, Refresh Token, Resource Owner, Response Type, >>> Token Endpoint, and Claim Value. >>> >>> We see that this paragraph was taken from Section 1.2 of RFC 8414. >>> We also see similar paragraphs in several other post-6000 RFCs. >>> >>> The following terms are lowercased in text everywhere else in this >>> document. Should we lowercase them in this list as well? >>> >>> Access Token, Authorization Server, Client, Client Identifier, >>> Protected Resource, and Resource Server >>> >>> We see that the terms listed as being from RFC 6749 are lowercased in >>> RFC 6749. Lowercase versus uppercase for the terms listed as being in >>> [JWT] (RFC 7519) is mixed. >>> >>> If all of these terms are relevant to this document, should the text >>> be reworded to suggest that readers be familiar with them? If not, >>> could this paragraph be (1) updated to tailor it to this document, as >>> was done in RFCs 9470 and 9700 or (2) removed? >>> >>> Original: >>> This specification uses the terms "Access Token", "Authorization >>> Code", "Authorization Endpoint", "Authorization Grant", >>> "Authorization Server", "Client", "Client Authentication", "Client >>> Identifier", "Client Secret", "Grant Type", "Protected Resource", >>> "Redirection URI", "Refresh Token", "Resource Owner", "Resource >>> Server", "Response Type", and "Token Endpoint" defined by OAuth 2.0 >>> [RFC6749], the terms "Claim Name", "Claim Value", and "JSON Web Token >>> (JWT)" defined by JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT]. --> >>> >>> >>> Yes, let's delete the terms we're not using, and use quoted lowercase terms >>> so that it matches RFC 9449, RFC 9470, and RFC 9700. >>> >>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Sections 2 and 8.1.2: We changed "Bearer Token" to >>> "bearer token" per RFC 6750. Please let us know any objections. >>> >>> If no objections, we will ask IANA to change "Bearer Token" to "bearer >>> token" in the "OAuth Protected Resource Metadata" registry on >>> <https://www/. >>> iana.org%2Fassignments%2Foauth-parameters%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201751463%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TxUFf0ihhrrSSESPn1bY8RDg1hcRmB84Tur%2BvMqXgEg%3D&reserved=0> >>> just prior to publication. >>> >>> Original: >>> JSON array containing a list of the supported methods >>> of sending an OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token [RFC6750] to the protected >>> resource. >>> ... >>> * Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the OAuth >>> 2.0 Bearer Token presentation methods that this protected resource >>> supports >>> >>> Currently: >>> JSON array containing a list of the supported methods >>> of sending an OAuth 2.0 bearer token [RFC6750] to the protected >>> resource. >>> ... >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of the OAuth 2.0 >>> bearer token presentation methods that this protected resource >>> supports --> >>> >>> >>> Agreed, when "bearer token" is referring to the type of token (rather than >>> referring to RFC 6750) it should be lowercase. >>> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: For ease of the reader, we provided a >>> brief explanation of the term "MACed" per RFC 7591. Please let us >>> know any objections. >>> >>> Original: >>> The signed metadata MUST be >>> digitally signed or MACed using JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] and >>> MUST contain an iss (issuer) claim denoting the party attesting to >>> the claims in the signed metadata. >>> >>> Currently: >>> The signed metadata MUST be >>> digitally signed or MACed (protected with a Message Authentication >>> Code) using a JSON Web Signature (JWS) [JWS] and MUST contain an iss >>> (issuer) claim denoting the party attesting to the claims in the >>> signed metadata. --> >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the four sourcecode entries in this >>> document, and let us know if you would like to specify a type. >>> For example, should the first and second sourcecode items have the >>> type set to "http-message", and should the third and fourth sourcecode >>> items have the type set to "json"? Please review and advise. >>> >>> If the current list of preferred values for "type" >>> (https://www/. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05 >>> %7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaa >>> aaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201765076%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0 >>> eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIl >>> dUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S9rCSReF7kSe9klNsDq5cv8DrSHcch5VmNii >>> ZXlX7Lo%3D&reserved=0) does not contain an applicable type, please let >>> us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute unset. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> All should be set to type "http-message". >>> >>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Please confirm that "OAuth protected >>> resources for protected resources" is as intended. >>> >>> Original: >>> protected_resources >>> OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of resource identifiers >>> for OAuth protected resources for protected resources that can be >>> used with this authorization server. --> >>> >>> >>> That looks like a duplicate "for protected resources", please delete, so >>> that it reads: >>> >>> protected_resources >>> OPTIONAL. JSON array containing a list of resource identifiers >>> for OAuth protected resources that can be >>> used with this authorization server. >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Figure 1: We see that the bottom set of boxes for >>> "Client", "Resource Server", and "Authorization Server" appear in the >>> SVG but not the ASCII art. Please update so that the ASCII art and >>> the SVG match. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for flagging the inconsistency. Please add this to the bottom of the >>> diagram: >>> >>> +----+-----+ +----+-----+ +-------+-------+ >>> | Client | | Resource | | Authorization | >>> | | | Server | | Server | >>> +----------+ +----------+ +---------------+ >>> >>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: The descriptive text regarding the steps >>> shown in Figure 1 doesn't seem to align with the steps shown in Figure >>> 1: >>> >>> In Figure 1: >>> Step 5 is "Validate ..." and "... Build ..." >>> Step 6 is "Fetch ..." >>> >>> In the text: >>> Step 5 is "... validates ..." >>> Step 6 is "... builds ..." and "... makes a request to fetch ..." >>> >>> May we update the descriptive text as suggested below? >>> >>> Original: >>> | 5. Validate RS Metadata | | | >>> | Build AS Metadata URL | | | >>> ... >>> | 6. Fetch AS Metadata | | >>> ... >>> 5. The client validates the protected resource metadata, as >>> described in Section 3.3. >>> >>> 6. The client builds the authorization server metadata URL from an >>> issuer identifier in the resource metadata according to >>> [RFC8414] and makes a request to fetch the authorization server >>> metadata. >>> >>> Suggested (easier to change the text than the figure): >>> 5. The client validates the protected resource metadata, as >>> described in Section 3.3, and builds the authorization server >>> metadata URL from an issuer identifier in the resource metadata >>> according to [RFC8414]. >>> >>> 6. The client makes a request to fetch the authorization server >>> metadata. --> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3: Does "scenarios where" also apply to >>> the text after "and", or is the text after "and" a separate thought? >>> If the former, may we update as suggested? >>> >>> Original: >>> This specification is intended to be deployed in scenarios where the >>> client has no prior knowledge about the resource server, and the >>> resource server might or might not have prior knowledge about the >>> client. >>> >>> Suggested: >>> This specification is intended to be deployed in scenarios where the >>> client has no prior knowledge about the resource server and where the >>> resource server might or might not have prior knowledge about the >>> client. --> >>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: "such as resource" looked odd in the text >>> output, so we placed "resource" in quotes per 'The name requested >>> (e.g., "resource")' in Section 8.1.1. Please let us know any >>> objections. >>> >>> Original: >>> For example, the member names in the >>> metadata response might be compared to specific member names such as >>> resource. >>> >>> Currently: >>> For example, the member names in the >>> metadata response might be compared to specific member names such as >>> "resource". --> >>> >>> >>> We should use <tt>resource</tt> for consistency, since this is actually a >>> parameter name. >>> >>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.6: We had trouble determining what "or >>> which could be published" refers to. If the suggested text is not >>> correct, please clarify. >>> >>> Original: >>> For >>> instance, some protected resources are used with a fixed >>> authorization server or set of authorization servers, the locations >>> of which may be well known, or which could be published as metadata >>> values by the protected resource. >>> >>> Suggested (guessing that the location information could be published): >>> For >>> instance, some protected resources are used with a fixed >>> authorization server or set of authorization servers, the locations >>> of which may be well known or could be published by the protected >>> resource as metadata values. --> >>> >>> >>> Maybe we can make this even more explicit by separating it into multiple >>> sentences: >>> >>> For instance, some protected resources are used with a fixed authorization >>> server or a set of authorization servers, the locations of which may be >>> known via out-of-band mechanisms. Alternatively, as described in this >>> specification, the locations of the authorization servers could be >>> published by the protected resource as metadata values. >>> >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.9: We see "PKIX" mentioned in RFC 9525 but >>> not standalone "PKI". Would you prefer to mention "PKIX" instead of >>> "PKI" here? >>> >>> Original: >>> This means that its security is dependent upon the Internet Public >>> Key Infrastructure (PKI) [RFC9525]. >>> >>> Possibly: >>> This means that its security is dependent upon the Internet Public >>> Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) [RFC9525]. --> >>> >>> >>> Please use: >>> >>> This means that its security is dependent upon the Internet Public Key >>> Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX), as described in [RFC9525]. >>> >>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.10: RFC 7234 has been obsoleted by RFC 9111. >>> Because we see "Cache-Control" and "max-age" discussed in RFC 9111 as >>> well, we updated the RFC number accordingly. Please let us know any >>> objections. >>> >>> Original ("utlize" has been fixed): >>> Implementations should utlize HTTP >>> caching directives such as Cache-Control with max-age, as defined in >>> [RFC7234], to enable caching of retrieved metadata for appropriate >>> time periods. >>> ... >>> [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, >>> Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", >>> RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014, >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>. >>> >>> Currently: >>> Implementations should utilize HTTP >>> caching directives such as Cache-Control with max-age, as defined in >>> [RFC9111], to enable caching of retrieved metadata for appropriate >>> time periods. >>> ... >>> [RFC9111] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, >>> Ed., "HTTP Caching", STD 98, RFC 9111, >>> DOI 10.17487/RFC9111, June 2022, >>> >>> <https://www/. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Finfo%2Frfc9111&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd >>> 08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201 >>> 789879%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >>> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sda >>> ta=jbOe9nWAwJvXV8bxH1ONAMS9qvNk%2BLvMrFz0%2FHYST%2B4%3D&reserved=0>. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> 19) <!-- [rfced] We have removed this first paragraph, as it seems >>> unnecessary. Please review. >>> >>> Original: >>> The following registration procedure is used for the registry >>> established by this specification. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>> 20) <!-- [rfced] To clarify the text, please consider the following >>> update. Currently, it is unclear whether mail sent to the list >>> initiates review or if it is where the expert sends the comments. >>> In addition, does the text need to mention Designated Experts, because >>> Expert Review is already part of Specification Required? >>> >>> Original: >>> Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC8126] basis >>> after a two-week review period on the oauth-ext-rev...@ietf.org >>> mailing list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Values are registered per Specification Required [RFC8126]. >>> Registration requests should be sent to <oauth-ext-rev...@ietf.org> >>> to initiate a two-week review period. >>> --> >>> >>> We don’t intend there to be anything unique to this spec with regards to >>> the review process. Any corrections here are acceptable. >>> >>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the text as follows based >>> on discussion with IANA. Please let us know if you have concerns. >>> >>> Original: >>> The IANA escalation process is followed when the designated experts >>> are not responsive within 14 days. >>> >>> Current: >>> If the designated experts are not responsive, the registration requesters >>> should contact IANA to escalate the process. >>> --> >>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>> 22) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider whether "makes sense" >>> should be "is clear and fits the purpose of the registry"? In >>> addition, we suggest stating the criteria clearly (i.e., is the >>> designated expert supposed to approve or not approve proposals that >>> duplicate functionality). >>> >>> Original: >>> Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts includes >>> determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing >>> functionality, whether it is likely to be of general >>> applicability or is useful only for a single application, >>> and whether the registration makes sense. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Designated experts should apply the following criteria when reviewing >>> proposed registrations: they must be unique, that is, they should not >>> duplicate existing functionality; they are likely generally applicable, >>> as opposed to being used for a single application; and they are clear >>> and fit the purpose of the registry. >>> --> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> 23) <!-- [rfced] This sentence is tough to parse. Please consider the >>> following update for clarity. >>> >>> Original: >>> The reason to allow the Designated Experts to allocate values prior >>> to publication as a final specification is to enable giving authors >>> of specifications proposing registrations the benefit of review by >>> the Designated Experts before the specification is completely done, >>> so that if problems are identified, the authors can iterate and fix >>> them before publication of the final specification. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Designated experts may allocate values prior to publication of the >>> final specification. This allows authors to receive guidance from >>> the designated experts early, so any identified issues can be fixed >>> before the final specification is published. >>> --> >>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>> 24) <!-- [rfced] [USA15] Do you want to specifically refer to the 2015 >>> version of the standard, or do you want to refer to the most current >>> version? Currently, we have updated this reference listing to primarily >>> refer to the 2015 version, and we have included a second link to the curent >>> version. Please review. >>> >>> Original: >>> [USA15] Davis, M. and K. Whistler, "Unicode Normalization Forms", >>> Unicode Standard Annex 15, 1 June 2015, >>> <https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>. >>> >>> Currently: >>> [USA15] Davis, M., Ed. and K. Whistler, Ed., "Unicode >>> Normalization Forms", Unicode Standard Annex #15, 1 June >>> 2015, <https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-43.html>. >>> Latest version available at >>> >>> <https://www/. >>> unicode.org%2Freports%2Ftr15%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd >>> 08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201 >>> 825678%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >>> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sda >>> ta=xcb4024eQ2zzXVIndtE2I77t6c%2F8IkfM%2FWVwdy4VOq4%3D&reserved=0>. --> >>> >>> The most current version would be best. >>> >>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgements: We found that all names were >>> listed in alphabetical order by last name, except for Gabriel Corona. >>> We moved Gabriel's name so that it appears after Deb Cooley's name >>> instead of Roman Danyliw's name. Please let us know any objections. >>> >>> Original: >>> We would would also like to thank Amanda Baber, Mike Bishop, Ralph >>> Bragg, Brian Campbell, Deb Cooley, Roman Danyliw, Gabriel Corona, >>> Vladimir Dzhuvinov, George Fletcher, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Pieter >>> Kasselman, Murray Kucherawy, David Mandelberg, Tony Nadalin, >>> Francesca Palombini, John Scudder, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef, Filip Skokan, >>> Orie Steele, Atul Tulshibagwale, Éric Vyncke, Paul Wouters, and Bo Wu >>> for their contributions to the specification. >>> >>> Currently ("would would" has been fixed): >>> We would also like to thank Amanda Baber, Mike Bishop, Ralph Bragg, >>> Brian Campbell, Deb Cooley, Gabriel Corona, Roman Danyliw, Vladimir >>> Dzhuvinov, George Fletcher, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Pieter Kasselman, >>> Murray Kucherawy, David Mandelberg, Tony Nadalin, Francesca >>> Palombini, John Scudder, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef, Filip Skokan, Orie >>> Steele, Atul Tulshibagwale, Éric Vyncke, Paul Wouters, and Bo Wu for >>> their contributions to the specification. --> >>> >>> Looks good, thanks. >>> >>> 26) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>> online Style Guide at >>> <https://www/. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C >>> 02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaa >>> aaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201839021%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 >>> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI >>> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KsZYR8dDQ8LdpDmxMVzjY%2FluS3GqJk%2B8wLD >>> h1Lx7C3c%3D&reserved=0>, and let us know if any changes are needed. >>> Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, >>> which is helpful for readers. >>> >>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >>> >>> man-in-the-middle --> >>> >>> We believe “man-in-the-middle” can be removed from the sentence without >>> affecting its meaning. Please do so. >>> >>> 27) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in this >>> document. We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any >>> objections. >>> >>> Protected resource (1 instance) ("The Protected resource's") / >>> protected resource (108 instances) >>> >>> Resource Identifier (1 instance in text) ("The protected resource's >>> Resource Identifier") / resource identifier (19 instances in text) >>> ("The protected resource's resource identifier") --> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> >>> In this review, we also identified a mistake in an example. Please >>> update the example in Section 5.1 as described in this pull request: >>> https://githu/ >>> b.com%2Foauth-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata%2Fpull%2F65%2Ffi >>> les&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f64 >>> 0afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201853214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >>> 3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo >>> iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h2wdn1pfYeI05m%2FpTa%2Fdd >>> KkYl4UmkGUal9%2FGSqmf5t8%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> (Lines 892-895 replaced with the below) >>> >>> HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized >>> WWW-Authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata= >>> >>> Thanks for the thorough review. >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/04/09 >>> >>> 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://maila/ >>> rchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8 >>> O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f6 >>> 40afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802597201902963%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs >>> b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj >>> oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lQRqElj9UJPcPJtqZWyrg8%2 >>> B18k1zyFYb5ozmWaYbZsI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> >>> https://maila/ >>> rchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0 >>> 3dd1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1 >>> %7C0%7C638802597201915095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy >>> dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D% >>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KRO4R3sNId6bw1CzSK1bifBXgLRoiV3Ga6j2e9E44wU%3D&r >>> eserved=0 >>> >>> * 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/rfc9728.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728.pdf >>> >>> https://www.r/ >>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9728.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf48 >>> 41b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638802 >>> 597201962079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwL >>> jAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C% >>> 7C&sdata=9WtF%2BkNgKaleZydYZrgA4OGQBeI7lQcR0SYHqUeEadI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9728-diff.html >>> >>> https://www.r/ >>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9728-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1 >>> f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0 >>> %7C638802597201984827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs >>> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7 >>> C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Vx0krnpprmj8G98K8gkAVVIrCwfgUGuNwoGcQfiO3KY%3D&reser >>> ved=0 (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> >>> https://www.r/ >>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9728-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd >>> 1f9970bf4841b6bd08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C >>> 0%7C638802597201998456%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU >>> sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D% >>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oGXGo%2FBy1DegNnuw20yVy%2BTeGHs2Y3ntOZej%2FXqfO4%3 >>> D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> >>> https://www.r/ >>> fc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9728&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03dd1f9970bf4841b6b >>> d08dd7b93de50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63880259720 >>> 2010697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMD >>> AwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd >>> ata=EncU0stsHS%2Bra2SNhCMyi7I%2FzMqt328rQmQ%2BymJRLkM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC 9728 (draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13) >>> >>> Title : OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata >>> Author(s) : M.B. Jones, P. Hunt, A. Parecki >>> 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
