I approve. LL
> On May 7, 2025, at 12:45 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Henk, > > Thank you for your response! We have noted your approval here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782. > > Once we receive approval from Lawrence, we will move this document forward in > the publication process. > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > >> On May 7, 2025, at 12:50 PM, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Madison, >> >> please add my approval, too. >> >> >> Thanks a ton! >> >> Henk >> >> On 07.05.25 19:07, Madison Church wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >>> Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status >>> page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9782). >>> Once we receive approvals from Henk and Laurence, we will move this >>> document forward in the publication process. >>> Thank you! >>> RFC Editor/mc >>>> On May 7, 2025, at 12:00 PM, Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@linaro.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Madison, all, >>>> >>>> On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 16:40, Madison Church >>>> <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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) >>>> >>>> Thanks much, LGTM. >>>> >>>> cheers! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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
