Hi Authors, *Debbie, *Debbie - As responsible AD for this document, please review the removal of RFC 7519 from the Normative References section and let us know if you approve.
Authors - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files as requested and all of our questions have been addressed. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9782-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782 Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On May 3, 2025, at 3:07 PM, Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@linaro.org> wrote: > > 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
