Dear Editor,
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 05:33, <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] We have updated the title of the document to expand
> "EAT" per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
>
> Original: EAT Media Types
>
> Current: Entity Attestation Token (EAT) Media Types -->
OK
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abstract and Section 1: Note that we have updated the
> expansion of RATS per RFC 9334. In addition, may we rephrase the text
> as follows to clarify the object being used in RESTful APIs?
>
> Original: Payloads used in Remote Attestation Procedures may require
> an associated media type for their conveyance, for example when used
> in RESTful APIs.
>
> Perhaps: The payloads used in Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) may
> require an associated media type for their conveyance, for example,
> when the payloads are used in RESTful APIs. -->
OK
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the title of Section 1.1 to
> "Terminology" from "Requirements Language" in order to avoid confusion
> regarding the use of "Requirements Language" in RFCs 2119 and 8174
> (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-4.8.2).
> Please let us know any objections. -->
OK
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Figure 2: Note that we have changed "Legenda" to
> "Legend" for clarity. Legeneda appears in some dictionaries without
> being defined as a key or explanation for a map or chart. -->
OK (apologies for the Italianism.)
> 5) <!-- [rfced] RFC-to-be 9711 <draft-ietf-rats-eat> seems to double
> quotes for Claim names, while this document seems to use <tt>. Should
> this document use double quotes to align with RFC 9711?
>
> Example from 9711: The "eat_profile" claim identifies ...
>
> From section 3 of this document: ... identifier using the eat_profile
> claim ...
9711 did it to be consistent with CWT, RFC 8392. So it makes sense to
be consistent with RFC 9711.
> In addition, please review the use of <tt> to ensure use is as desired
> and consistent. The pattern of use is unclear to us. We see the
> following instances of <tt>:
These instances come from using backticks in kramdown-rfc, which we had
(wrongly) assumed would be rendered as quoted text in TXT and <tt> in
HTML.
Happy to follow the established convention.
> <tt>eat_profile</tt> claim <tt>eat_profile</tt> parameter
> <tt>application/eat+cwt</tt> <tt>parameter-value</tt>
> <tt>quoted-string</tt> encoding <tt>application/eat+jwt;
> eat_profile="tag:evidence.example,2022"</tt> <tt>token</tt> encoding
> <tt>application/eat+cwt; eat_profile=2.999.1</tt>
> <tt>application/eat-ucs+json</tt> and
> <tt>application/eat-ucs+cbor</tt> <tt>+cwt</tt> Structured Syntax
> Suffix <tt>+cwt</tt> <tt>application/cwt</tt>
>
> Double quotes are used in the registration templates: Optional
> parameters: "eat_profile"
>
> application/eat* (sans <tt> in table) +cwt (sans <tt> in the IANA
> template) -->
OK
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the "NOTE" in Figures 3 and
> 4 to reflect what appears in Section 7.1.1 in RFC 8792
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8792.html#name-header). Are the
> pound symbols important (e.g., do they indicate comments)?
>
> Original: # NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
>
> Updated: NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 -->
I believe I originally added the pound because of compatibility with the
automatic validator script. It was a while ago, though, so my memory
may not be 100% accurate. I have just removed the pound from my local
copy, re-run the validators, and everything still works perfectly!
Long story short: OK with the removal :-)
> 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFC 7519 is not cited anywhere in this
> document. Please let us know if there is an appropriate place in the
> text to reference this RFC. Otherwise, we will remove it from the
> Normative References section. -->
OK with removing. JWT is brought in "transitively" through EAT.
> 8) <!-- [rfced] We have the following queries regarding abbreviations
> and expansions.
>
> a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per
> Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
OK
> b) FYI - When the abbreviation "EAT" is used in plural form, we have
> updated to use "EATs". We note this expansion in particular since
> there are multiple occurences that have been updated. Please let us
> know any objections. -->
OK
> 9) <!-- [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.
OK.
Thanks very much for your work on the document.
Cheers, Thomas, Laurence and Henk.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
