Hi Madison,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 11:30:03AM -0600, Madison Church wrote:
> Thank you for your prompt reply (and apologies for missing those
> edits earlier)!
No worries at all, and thanks for your work on this.
> We have updated the files accordingly. Please let us know if any
> further upda
On Dec 4, 2024, at 10:11, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Authors and AD,
>
> Please see mail below regarding this document as well as our cluster-wide
> email with questions relating to all three related documents.
>
> This document set has been in AUTH48 since mid-September. Please let us know
> if
I approve publication
From: Madison Church
Date: Thursday, 5 December 2024 at 3:30 am
To: Tom Harrison , car...@lacnic.net ,
George Michaelson , t...@ripe.net ,
s...@hactrn.net
Cc: RFC Editor , sidrops-...@ietf.org
, sidrops-cha...@ietf.org , Russ
Housley , Warren Kumari ,
auth48archive@rfc
Hi Madison,
thanks for your detailed work.
I approve for publication.
/Carlos
---
--
Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
LACNIC
On 2024-12-04 14:30, Madison Church wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your prompt reply (and apologies for missing those edits
earlier)! We have updated the files accordingly. Ple
Hi all,
Thank you so much for all the changes and discussion to align on them!
As a co-author, I have reviewed the diffs and the recent HTML version,
and I approve of the changes.
Best,
Reese
On 12/4/24 10:03, Megan Ferguson wrote:
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the tit
Hi,
About the title:
IIRC after all these emails, the main concern from the RFC Editor was about the
use of “Application Layer Interface” instead of “Application Programming
Interface”.
I was okay with changing this, but it seems that I created a mess by suggesting
“The Transport Services Appl
Hi,
Just in case: as an editor, I confirm that I agree with Mirja’s suggestion
below (and Gorry Fairhurst also agreed in a private email).
Cheers,
Michael
> On 4 Dec 2024, at 08:27, Mirja Kuehlewind
> wrote:
>
> Hi Megan,
>
> please see my answer below for your question, marked with [MK].
Hi Sandy,
I approve publication.
Kind regards,
Ties
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 21:32, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> Hi Job,
>
> Thanks for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9697>. We will wait to hear from
> your coauthor before continuin
Hi all,
The suggestion below looks good to me.
I also agree to keep the titles of the other documents as is.
BR,
Anna
-Original Message-
From: Michael Welzl
Sent: den 4 december 2024 11:10
To: Brian Trammell (IETF)
Cc: Anna Brunström ; Mirja Kuehlewind
; Megan Ferguson ; Gorry
Fairh
Thank you!
"cose key" should be "COSE Key",
We could add "COSE Key as described in Section 7 of RFC9052" and "JSON Web
Key, as described in Section 4 of RFC7517"
If the citations are helpful... This is a style nit.
I approve of the changes.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:48 PM Karen Moore wrote:
>
Authors and AD,
Please see mail below regarding this document as well as our cluster-wide email
with questions relating to all three related documents.
This document set has been in AUTH48 since mid-September. Please let us know if
there is anything we can do to facilitate moving the AUTH48 rev
Authors and AD,
Please see mail below regarding this document as well as our cluster-wide email
with questions relating to all three related documents.
This document set has been in AUTH48 since mid-September. Please let us know if
there is anything we can do to facilitate moving the AUTH48 rev
Dear RFC Editor, dear all,
Please find below the answers to the questions regarding draft-ietf-taps-impl.
I hope that my co-authors react in case they disagree with something - and I
hope that sharing this in that way does not produce too much email traffic at
this point.
I tried to strike a ba
Authors and AD,
Please see mail below regarding this document as well as our cluster-wide email
with questions relating to all three related documents.
This document set has been in AUTH48 since mid-September. Please let us know if
there is anything we can do to facilitate moving the AUTH48 rev
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your prompt reply (and apologies for missing those edits
earlier)! We have updated the files accordingly. Please let us know if any
further updates are necessary. We will await approvals from each author prior
to moving forward in the publication process.
The files have b
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the title and the lists as
discussed below.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.html
http
Thanks for the edits. It looks good to me with the additional edits Orie
proposed in his recent email.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 4:27 PM Orie Steele
wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> "cose key" should be "COSE Key",
>
> We could add "COSE Key as described in Section 7 of RFC9052" and "JSON Web
> Key, as desc
Hi Orie and *Paul (AD),
We have updated the text with your additional suggested edits; the changes are
now reflected in our files (links below). We now await approvals from Hannes
and Paul.
*Paul, please review the following changes and let us know if you approve. The
updates can also be viewe
Hello Hannes,
We have noted your approval of the document on the AUTH48 status page
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679).
We now await approval from Paul.
Best regards,
RFC Editor/kc
> On Dec 4, 2024, at 12:11 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the edits. It looks good to
I have finished my work on both documents and have uploaded new versions on
github. Stuart has some additional updates to make based on his review of
the document, and we met to discuss his work this evening. I think he has
some conflicts and won't be able to update until next week, but I also get
Hi Arnt,
We have made some of the updates described below, but we have a couple of
followup comments/questions. Please see our comments in-line below.
The current files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9698.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9698.txt
ht
Folks, I hate to do this, but in reviewing the newly added section, I realized
that it was incorrectly using the term "claim". In both RFC 7800 and RFC 8747,
"cnf" is a claim, whereas the JWT and CWT confirmation members are referred to
as "members" - not "claims". Then I realized there other
22 matches
Mail list logo
