Hi Mike,
Thank for trying to follow the guidance we previously sent! What you said is
correct — compound adjectives are hyphenated when appearing before the noun.
CMOS treats adverbs ending with -ly differently — that is, no hyphen whether
appearing before or after the noun. We removed the hyphen from “fully
qualified” for this reason. If you feel strongly about using the hyphen in
this case, please let us know.
Thanks,
Sandy
> On Sep 19, 2025, at 10:47 AM, Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed work on this specification, Lynne and Karen! Before
> responding to the rest of the feedback, I wanted to get a broader set of
> opinions one change made, including possibly from Sandy and Alice, who I’ve
> added to the thread.
>
> Uses of the compound adjective "fully-specified" (typically used in the
> context "fully-specified algorithms") were changed to "fully specified". The
> rationale for this change cited was as follows:
>
> a) The following term was used inconsistently in this document.
> We chose to use the latter form. Please let us know any objections.
>
> fully-specified /
> fully specified (e.g., "are fully-specified", "are fully
> specified", "fully specified RSA algorithms")*
>
> * Per the Chicago Manual of Style
> ("Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ‑ly plus an adjective or
> participle (such as largely irrelevant or smartly dressed) are not
> hyphenated either before or after a noun, since ambiguity is virtually
> impossible (a smartly dressed couple).")
>
> In previous interactions with the RFC Editor, I’d been told that the normal
> convention was to hyphenate compound adjectives qualifying a noun, such as
> “fully-specified algorithms”, but to not hyphenate noun phrases, such as “The
> algorithm is fully specified”. Therefore, I followed that convention in the
> document.
>
> Not that this is authoritative, but a Bing search result for “when to
> hyphenate words” opens with:
> Here are some rules for when to hyphenate words:
> • Compound Adjectives: Hyphenate two or more words when they come
> before a noun and act as a single idea, such as "well-written book".
> • Modifiers: Use a hyphen when a compound modifier precedes the noun it
> modifies, like "high-speed chase".
>
> This seems to support retaining the hyphenation when used as a compound
> adjective.
>
> Personally, retaining the hyphenation in these contexts seems more natural to
> me, the Chicago Manual of Style’s suggestion notwithstanding.
>
> But I’d be curious what others think. I’ve added Sandy and Alice to the
> thread in case they want to weigh in.
>
> Thanks all,
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 12:52 PM
> To: michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com; orie@transmute.industries
> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; jose-...@ietf.org; jose-cha...@ietf.org;
> kodo...@pobox.com; debcool...@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
> <draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the document title has been updated as
> follows. The abbreviations "JOSE” and "COSE" have been expanded per Section
> 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please let us know any objections.
>
> Original:
> Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE
>
> Currently:
> Fully Specified Algorithms for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
> and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) -->
>
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: Because it appears that "full-specified"
> means "fully specified", we updated this text accordingly. If this is
> incorrect, please let us know what "full-specified" means (possibly
> "specified in full"?).
>
> Original:
> (The corresponding JOSE registrations in [RFC7518] are
> full-specified.)
>
> Currently:
> (The corresponding JOSE registrations in [RFC7518] are fully specified.) -->
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: We see "COSE_Encrypt" but not "COSE Encrypt"
> in RFC 9052, and we do not see "COSE Encrypt" or "COSE_Encrypt" in RFC 9053.
> Please let us know how/if this sentence should be updated so that it is clear
> to readers. For example, we see "using COSE_Encrypt, as specified in Section
> 5.1 of [RFC9052]" later in this section.
>
> Original:
> This section describes the construction of fully-specified encryption
> algorithm identifiers in the context of the JOSE and COSE encryption schemes
> JSON Web Encryption (JWE), as described in [RFC7516] and [RFC7518], and COSE
> Encrypt, as described in [RFC9052] and [RFC9053]. -->
>
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: Please confirm that "must specify" in this
> sentence shouldn't be "MUST specify".
>
> Original:
> To perform fully-specified encryption in COSE, the outer "alg" value MUST
> specify all parameters for key establishment and the inner "alg"
> value must specify all parameters for symmetric encryption. -->
>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: "as are the key wrapping with AES GCM
> algorithms" reads oddly. Should "key wrapping with AES GCM" be placed in
> quotes, per the quoted algorithm types in the next paragraph?
>
> We have the same question for "The JOSE Key Encryption with PBES2 algorithms"
> two paragraphs later.
>
> Original (all three paragraphs included for context):
> In both JOSE and COSE, all registered key wrapping algorithms are fully
> specified, as are the key wrapping with AES GCM algorithms. An example of a
> fully-specified key wrapping algorithm is "A128KW" (AES Key Wrap using
> 128-bit key).
>
> The JOSE "dir" and COSE "direct" algorithms are fully specified. The COSE
> direct+HKDF algorithms are fully specified.
>
> The JOSE Key Encryption with PBES2 algorithms are fully specified. -->
>
>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA text
> below. In addition to responding to those questions, please review all of the
> IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any further updates are
> needed.
>
> "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fjose&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219239947582%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Lpbs%2FLrUbgzh999pBNrxBkhIyP%2Bd9Vtgk2yB6HcnrCE%3D&reserved=0
>
> "COSE Algorithms" registry:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fcose&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219239970249%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7vAi0wHt90tiW4IMHmJVoPfaDbvP1rWbWyZk9snLYdY%3D&reserved=0
>
> a) Section 4.1: As the "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms"
> registry was established by RFC 7518, we have replaced RFC 7515 with RFC 7518
> as shown below. We have also removed RFC 7515 from the normative references
> section as it was only mentioned in Section 4.1.
> Note that RFC 7518 is listed as an informative reference; please let us know
> if this is okay as is or if it should be normative.
>
> We also included that this document was listed as an additional reference for
> the registry at the end of the sentence below (and have removed the related
> text from Section 4.3, which describes the updates to the review instructions
> for the DEs).
> Note that a similar change was made to Section 4.2 for the "COSE Algorithms"
> registry, as shown below.
>
> Please review and let us know of any objections.
>
> Original (Section 4.1):
> This section registers the following values in the IANA "JSON Web Signature
> and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE] established by [RFC7515].
>
> Currently:
> IANA has registered the values in this section in the "JSON Web Signature
> and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE] established by [RFC7518] and
> has listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
>
> ...
> Original (Section 4.2):
> This section registers the following values in the IANA "COSE Algorithms"
> registry [IANA.COSE].
>
> Currently:
> IANA has registered the following values in the "COSE Algorithms"
> registry [IANA.COSE] established by [RFC9053] and [RFC9054] and has added
> this document as an additional reference for the registry.
>
> b) Per the changes noted in a) above, we will ask IANA to update the
> reference for the "COSE Algorithms" registry as shown below (i.e., update the
> section number listed for this document).
>
> Original:
> Reference
> [RFC9053][RFC9054][draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13,
> Section 4.3.1]
>
> Suggested:
> Reference
> [RFC9053][RFC9054][RFC9864, Section 4.2]
>
> c) In Section 4.2.1, we note that this document lists section numbers for the
> algorithms but the "COSE Algorithm" registry does not, so there is a
> mismatch. Should "Section 2.1" and "Section 2.2" be removed from this
> document for consistency with the registry, or should IANA add "Section 2.1"
> and "Section 2.2" accordingly for consistency with this document?
>
> Section 2.1 listed in the document
> but not in the registry for:
> ESP256
> ESP384
> ESP512
> ESB256
> ESB320
> ESB384
> ESB512
>
> Section 2.2 listed in the document
> but not in the registry for:
> Ed25519
> Ed448
>
> d) For "ES512" in the "COSE Algorithm" registry, we note that "IETF"
> is not listed under "Change Controller". Should "IETF" be added to the
> registry or removed from this document?
>
> Currently in this document:
> Name: ES512
> Value: -36
> Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-512
> Capabilities: [kty]
> Change Controller: IETF
> Reference: [RFC9053] and RFC 9864
> Recommended: Deprecated
> -->
>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8152 has been obsoleted by RFC 9052. May we replace all
> instances of RFC 8152 with RFC 9052, or may we add the following sentence to
> the first mention of RFC 8152? Please let us know your preference.
>
> Original:
> Furthermore, while in [RFC7518] JOSE specifies that both "Deprecated"
> and "Prohibited" can be used, in [RFC8152] COSE specifies the use
> of "Deprecated" but not "Prohibited".
>
> Perhaps:
> Furthermore, while in [RFC7518] JOSE specifies that both "Deprecated"
> and "Prohibited" can be used, in [RFC8152] COSE specifies the use
> of "Deprecated" but not "Prohibited" (note that [RFC8152] has been
> obsoleted by [RFC9052]).
> -->
>
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: We see that the entry for "Recommended"
> is formatted differently than the entries for "Deprecated" and "Prohibited"
> that appear just before it. Would you like all three entries to be formatted
> in the same way?
>
> Original:
> Deprecated
> There is a preferred mechanism to achieve similar functionality to
> that referenced by the identifier; this replacement functionality
> SHOULD be utilized in new deployments in preference to the
> deprecated identifier, unless there exist documented operational
> or regulatory requirements that prevent migration away from the
> deprecated identifier.
>
> Prohibited
> The identifier and the functionality that it references MUST NOT
> be used. (Identifiers may be designated as "Prohibited" due to
> security flaws, for instance.)
> ...
> Recommended: Does the IETF have a consensus recommendation to use
> the algorithm? The legal values are "Yes", "No", "Filter Only",
> "Prohibited", and "Deprecated".
>
> Possibly:
> Recommended
> Does the IETF have a consensus recommendation to use the
> algorithm? The legal values are "Yes", "No", "Filter Only",
> "Prohibited", and "Deprecated". -->
>
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: Because the title of RFC 8996 is "Deprecating
> TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1", should 'the term "Deprecated" is used in the title of
> [RFC8996]' be 'a variation of the term "Deprecated" is used in the title of
> [RFC8996]'?
>
> Original:
> For instance, the term "Deprecated" is used in the title of [RFC8996], but
> the actual specification text uses the terminology "MUST NOT be used". -->
>
>
> 10) <!-- [rfced] [OpenID.Discovery]: We see "Jones, M.B." in this document
> but "M. Jones" on the provided web page. We normally make the author
> listings in the document match what we see on the provided web page. Would
> it be possible for Mike to update
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-discovery-1_0.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219239987169%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r3HRAmIlshZua84WFh%2F%2FXen5oirOJmo7F7QivL%2FXj3k%3D&reserved=0>
> and list his name as "M.B. Jones", or should we change "Jones, M.B." to
> "Jones, M." here?
>
> Original:
> [OpenID.Discovery]
> Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M.B., and E. Jay,
> "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0", 15 December 2023,
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-discovery-&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240004052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PnvYDgYCWEPw6WOe8mR1e9Hd4xxAjargrZ7ye0k6cLo%3D&reserved=0
> 1_0.html>. -->
>
>
> 11) <!-- [rfced] The provided URL for [FIDO2] yields a 404. May we update as
> suggested (which includes correcting the names of the last two authors in the
> list)? If not, please provide a working URL and correct information.
>
> Original:
> [FIDO2] Bradley, J., Jones, M., Kumar, A., Lindemann, R., Johan,
> J., and D. David, "Client to Authenticator Protocol
> (CTAP)", FIDO Alliance Proposed Standard, 28 February
> 2025,
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffidoalliance.org%2Fspecs%2Ffido-v2.2-ps-&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240020812%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wk%2BqjNAWwybe%2BNs0HCUyf0uzwFLgfCa76jrI4nltYXs%3D&reserved=0
> 20250228/fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.2-ps-
> 20250228.html>.
>
> Suggested:
> [FIDO2] Bradley, J., Jones, M.B., Kumar, A., Lindemann, R.,
> Verrept, J., and D. Waite, "Client to Authenticator
> Protocol (CTAP)", FIDO Alliance Proposed Standard, 14
> July 2025,
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffidoalliance.org%2Fspecs%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240037574%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FP0g%2FKOGWHW%2BYPFuXXipjKV0SlSU2Vq9k9InN2HuHLQ%3D&reserved=0
> fido-v2.2-ps-20250714/
> fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.2-ps-20250714.html>. -->
>
>
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgements: John Preuß Mattsson recently informed us
> that his last name is "Preuß Mattsson". Because it appears that the names
> should be listed in alphabetical order, we moved John's name in the list
> accordingly. Please let us know any concerns.
>
> Original:
> ...
> Stephen Farrell, Vijay Gurbani, Ilari Liusvaara, Tobias Looker, Neil Madden,
> John Preuß Mattsson, Kathleen Moriarty, Jeremy O'Donoghue, Anders Rundgren,
> Göran Selander, Filip Skokan, Oliver Terbu, Hannes ...
>
> Currently:
> ...
> Stephen Farrell, Vijay Gurbani, Ilari Liusvaara, Tobias Looker, Neil Madden,
> Kathleen Moriarty, Jeremy O'Donoghue, John Preuß Mattsson, Anders Rundgren,
> Göran Selander, Filip Skokan, Oliver Terbu, Hannes ... -->
>
>
> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
> Style Guide at
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240054468%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b0CTAmXBa25EfOmagyg3ryk%2BWNgH0QJbZmPjtMWwEW0%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.
>
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
> still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
>
>
> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
> following:
>
> a) The following term was used inconsistently in this document.
> We chose to use the latter form. Please let us know any objections.
>
> fully-specified /
> fully specified (e.g., "are fully-specified", "are fully
> specified", "fully specified RSA algorithms")*
>
> * Per the Chicago Manual of Style
> ("Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ‑ly plus an adjective or
> participle (such as largely irrelevant or smartly dressed) are not
> hyphenated either before or after a noun, since ambiguity is virtually
> impossible (a smartly dressed couple).")
>
> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this document.
> Please let us know which form is preferred.
>
> alg value (2 instances) / "alg" value (7 instances)
>
> enc value ("alg and enc values") / "enc" value (5 instances)
>
> HSS/LMS / HSS-LMS ("HSS/LMS Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm",
> "HSS-LMS algorithm")
>
> c) The following terms appear both with and without <tt> in the XML file.
> Please review, and let us know if the current applications of <tt> are
> correct and consistent.
>
> <tt>Ed25519</tt> (no <tt>s in IANA Considerations section)
> <tt>Ed448</tt> (no <tt>s in IANA Considerations section)
> <tt>EdDSA</tt> usage of <tt> appears to be inconsistent (e.g., in
> the XML file, we see
> "This redefines the COSE <tt>EdDSA</tt> algorithm identifier" and
> "The following fully specified JOSE and COSE EdDSA algorithms" -->
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Lynne Bartholomew and Karen Moore
> RFC Production Center
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2025, at 12:48 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive
> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2025/09/18
>
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240071070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5LlRsRdsAChWsSFY1l1zDBgUDolWrCZfJ5DFhWXGL4M%3D&reserved=0).
>
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240087673%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vJOjg3CuCk2jSnhAda1VRrEgjZglA5QtiIn1932sJto%3D&reserved=0).
>
> * 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240106128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EJ7P7daFAUcPs4CKc6%2BpYcwa5lN3O7%2BIrZqF%2FunSgu0%3D&reserved=0>.
>
> * 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240122771%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KFx3dmYWZbLJQN%2FBa%2BOCOmEUDbiSXwfrKgFaHHsAhB0%3D&reserved=0
>
> * The archive itself:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240139165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A7pFfcIBTP1FPWES4KWRifum47UEVaMrsoqOJTJFUGA%3D&reserved=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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240155613%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0XLtyObtuE9o59v291PS6hLAai192wiGmxzFciv6wB8%3D&reserved=0
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240172164%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XlsS3BgvphTDOADLx9NS0sjb8TneWAD4Kr61CK2pZEE%3D&reserved=0
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240188773%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e8W7wzLOkkbRY%2Be3xMHWZ9VrgojJ%2FJwmxG5aSIxRpD4%3D&reserved=0
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240204992%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZmJ06UeIejLih4ii1HQEh07QOlWPh3BI8CNs2lp%2FVGs%3D&reserved=0
>
> Diff file of the text:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240221221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sMmWP4mngUjWimf0rcBT9mklO9jm7xIg4t1Rt8QzgV4%3D&reserved=0
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240237504%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gHVw9rDGLwUYqxr4ccDfpY4baOicWMUmXAwWe0h0iOU%3D&reserved=0
> (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240255659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iMuVBTgmaCL6o33wyUNsdKk2qyJJ2T5dPRbLfybLT1E%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9864&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cadd0393b064d4ac2b97c08ddf6ecd3d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638938219240272145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7ZP%2Bv8sh3%2BU6JM6RSSQ8SS9TsTEh%2FZ0UxnepPN0d3Q%3D&reserved=0
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9864 (draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13)
>
> Title : Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE
> Author(s) : M.B. Jones, O. Steele
> WG Chair(s) : John Bradley, John Preuß Mattsson, Karen O'Donoghue
>
> 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
