Hi Madison, On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 20:21, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 1) Thank you for your explanation. We have updated the following usage of > <tt> for consistency: > <tt>eat_profile</tt> claim to "eat_profile" claim (per use in RFC-to-be-9711) > <tt>eat_profile</tt> parameter to "eat_profile" parameter > +cwt to <tt>+cwt</tt> > > Note that the following terms use <tt> tags in running text but do not > contain <tt> tags in Tables 1 and 2. We have left each instance as is. > application/eat+cwt > application/eat-ucs+json > application/eat-ucs+cbor > > Please review the updates regarding <tt> tagging closely and let us know if > any further updates are needed.
Works for us, thanks. > >> 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. > > 2) Upon further review, we found a place to cite this reference in the text > instead of removing it from the normative references entirely. Please review > the updated text below and let us know if you approve (or if you would prefer > to remove the reference as originally suggested). > > Original: > Figure 2 illustrates the six EAT wire formats and how they relate to > each other. [EAT] defines four of them (CWT, JWT and Detached EAT > Bundle in its JSON and CBOR flavours), whilst [UCCS] defines UCCS and > UJCS. > > Current: > Figure 2 illustrates the six EAT wire formats and how they relate to > each other. [EAT] defines four of them (CBOR Web Token (CWT), JSON > Web Token (JWT) [JWT], and the detached EAT bundle in its JSON and > CBOR flavours), while [UCCS] defines the Unprotected CWT Claims Set > (UCCS) and Unprotected JWT Claims Sets (UJCS). We prefer it without the JWT reference. The media types are for EAT, UCCS and UJCS, not JWT. A clickable reference in that opening sentence leads away from that. We think the document is OK without a JWT reference. The CWT reference is just there for the “+cwt” registration, not because it is needed for any of the EAT media type registrations. cheers, thanks! Thomas, Henk & Laurence -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
