[auth48] Re: **[AD] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Warren. Apologies; not sure whether your "This works for me" note refers to the current text or the "Possibly" text. Would you please clarify? Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Nov 25, 2024, at 12:09 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 1:34 PM, Lynne Bartholomew

[auth48] Re: **[AD] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Warren. No worries! We've noted your approval re. this topic on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9609 Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Dec 5, 2024, at 9:15 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 1:50 PM, Lynne Bartholomew > wrote:

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Paul. Great, and no worries! We've noted your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9609 Thank you! Thanks also for checking in with Peter. RFC Editor/lb > On Dec 9, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2024, at 09:34, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: >> >> Dear Pe

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Dear Peter and Paul, Checking in with you regarding the status of this document. Please let us know whether you approve this document in its current form or further changes are needed. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc960

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Éric, Ben, and Kevin. Happy New Year! Éric, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 Ben, we have updated this document per your notes below, except for this item; please advise: > Section 1: > "This specification expects that loc

[auth48] Re: No longer at CDT (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Mirja, Wes, and Mallory. Mirja, please see our [rfced] notes inline below. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.html

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Peter and Paul. Happy New Year! Peter, we updated your contact information per your note below. Regarding your question about verb tenses: The only changes we could see in the diff files were the updates from "is published" to "was published". We're not sure what "mix of past and present

[auth48] *[Document Shepherd] Re: Sec consideration sec (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Mirja and *Suresh. Mirja, checking in with you regarding the status of this document. It appears that several questions remain open. * Suresh, please note that in your capacity as Document Shepherd we also need to hear from you regarding the Security Considerations section and Mirja's com

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Peter. Great! We have noted your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9609 We will prepare this document for publication shortly. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Feb 4, 2025, at 5:21 AM, Peter Koch wrote: > > Dear Lynne, > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:54:46AM -0800, Lynne B

[auth48] Re: No longer at CDT (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Mallory. We have noted your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9707 Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 30, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Mallory Knodel > wrote: > > Approve from me > > Executive Director, Social Web Foundation > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:47 Lynne Bartholomew

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Peter. Please note that this document awaits your review and approval. Please review via the links below, and let us know whether you approve this document for publication in its current form or additional changes are needed. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review

Hi, Dhruv. Thank you for your prompt replies! Thanks also for the updated email address for Mallory. Is "Center for Democracy and Technology" in Appendix C still correct? We have a few more follow-up items for you: = = = = = Regarding this question and your reply: >> 12) > > > > Dhruv:

[auth48] Re: No longer at CDT (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Mallory. Is "Mallory Knodel (IAB, Center for Democracy and Technology)" in Appendix C of RFC-to-be 9707 still correct (because it was your affiliation at the time), or should we update your affiliation? If you'd like to update, please provide the correct affiliation information. Thank you

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review

Hi, Mallory and Dhruv. Mallory, we have updated your contact information in this document and our corresponding database record. Dhruv, thank you for your prompt reply to our additional questions! The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/aut

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Ben and *Éric. * Éric, even though the restructuring of Section 8 (re. our question 15)) appears to be editorial in nature, please review, and let us know if you approve. Ben, thank you for your replies to our questions! We have updated this document per your notes below. A follow-up no

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Ben. We have updated this document per your note below. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html https://www.rfc-ed

[auth48] Re: No longer at CDT (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Dhruv. Please note that my email address has changed to . We have further updated this document per your note below. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.pdf https:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Tiru and Med. Tiru, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 Med, we have updated this document per your note below. However, we're not sure if the updates are correct. We followed the style of several recent RFCs, where the note

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Med. We have further updated this document per your notes below. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html https://w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Great! So noted (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704). Thank you, Med! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 27, 2025, at 9:07 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Lynne, > > The changes look good to me. Thanks for your patience. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De :

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Med. Please let us know whether or not this document is ready for publication in its current form (following the latest updates per your notes further below). We now have all author approvals (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704), and with your final approval we can then move this doc

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Peter. Checking in with you regarding the status of this document. Please let us know whether (1) further changes are needed or (2) you approve this document for publication in its current form. After we receive your approval for publication, we can move this document forward. The AUTH48

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9609 for your review

Hi, Peter. Please note that my email address has changed. We have restored "is published"; we do not want to create any concerns. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.pdf

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Ben. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 13, 2025, at 12:53 PM, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > I approve this version for publication. > > --Ben SchwartzFrom: Lynne Bartholomew > Sent: Monday, Ja

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Ben and Éric. Ben, we have further updated this document per your note below. Éric, we have noted your approval for the updates to Section 7 on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Dan and Kevin. Dan, we have updated your contact information per your note below. We have noted both of your approvals on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/autho

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Tiru, Ben, and Éric. Tiru and Ben, we have further updated this document per your notes below. Ben, no miscommunication; apologies for missing the change from "A compliant" to "The" earlier. Éric, yes, we were asking about the last sentence in Section 6.1. Apologies for not being clearer

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Ben and *Éric. * Éric, please review the updates in Section 7, and let us know if you approve the removal of the 'If the "ds" key is not present ...' sentence, which contained a "MUST". Ben, we have made further updates per your notes below. Please see "[rfced]" below re. the first change

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hi, Tiru, Ben, and Éric* * Éric, please let us know if you approve the change from "could" to "MAY". (We have to get AD approval for any changes related to key words from RFC 2119.) Tiru and Ben, we have updated this document per your notes below. Quick follow-up question: Because "PvD" stan

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Missed the period at the end of the salutation. 😑 > On Jan 15, 2025, at 8:47 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > wrote: > > Hi, Tiru, Ben, and Éric*. > > * Éric, please let us know if you approve the change from "could" to "MAY". > (We have to get AD approval for any changes related to key words from RF

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Paul. So noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 2, 2025, at 5:23 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Approved as AD - these were brought to attention of the WG. > > Paul > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 2:13 PM Lynne Bartholomew > wrote: > Hi, Eric.

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric and coauthors. Eric, thanks for the pointer to the latest XML file. Please note that in order to avoid any mismatches between your GitHub repository and our copies of the files, we will wait until we prepare this document for publication before updating the publication-month entry. Th

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric. Sorry -- does this mean that a new XML file is available somewhere? If yes, please provide a pointer to it. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 9, 2025, at 9:21 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > The PR was merged last week. > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:18 AM Lynne Bartholomew > wrote:

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Sean and Eric. On March 26, Eric let us know that an updated XML was available at . We fetched the March 26 XML, created the output files, and posted them on March 31 (10:32 AM PST). We had some follow-up questions, an

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Hi, Doug and *AD. Doug, thank you for your reply to our additional questions! We have updated the document accordingly. * AD (Erik or Éric), because a reviewer had requested earlier that a citation and reference listing for RFC 2026 be added in this document, please let us know if you approve

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric. We will wait for any further changes before noting your approval. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 10, 2025, at 10:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I approve publication once the data is adjusted. > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 9:36 AM Lynne Bartholomew > wrote: > Hi, Eric and

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Hi, Doug. Thank you for your review and reply! A few follow-up items for you: 1. Apologies if our question 9) was unclear. > Your reply: > We believe the link to the reference is wrong. You are correct, there is no > relationship to RFC2026, the link should have pointed to the [ISPCS] > re

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 for your review

Hi, Aaron. Thank you for your replies to our questions! We have three follow-up items for you: * Regarding this question and your reply: >> 5) >> > Please use this wording, as we identified another ambiguity in the previous > wording: > > These values, such as the jwks_uri (see Section 2),

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 for your review

Dear IANA, Per author feedback, please make the following update in the "OAuth Protected Resource Metadata" registry on : OLD: JSON array containing a list of the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token presentation methods that this protected resource suppo

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Benjamin, Sean, Emad, and Alan. Sean, thanks for confirming with Benjamin that we need approvals from each author. Thanks also for forwarding Alan's email. Benjamin, Emad, and Alan, we have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 Thank

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Dear Heiko, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9760 If we can receive approval from Éric, we will move this document forward for publication. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On May 1, 2025, at 11:59 PM, Heiko Gerstung > wrote: > > I a

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Dear Heiko and *Éric, We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Heiko, please let us know whether further changes are required for this document or you approve it for publication. * Éric, please see our note below (email of 9 April) re.

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Dear Heiko and *Éric, We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Heiko, please let us know whether further changes are required for this document or you approve it for publication. * Éric, please see our note below re. removing the citati

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Apologies for the duplicate email; hiccup on our end. > On May 1, 2025, at 9:41 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > wrote: > > Dear Heiko and *Éric, > > We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's > readiness for publication. > > Heiko, please let us know whether further chan

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9769 for your review

Hi, Aanchal. We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review the document, and let us know whether additional updates are needed or you approve this document for publication in its current form. The latest files are posted here.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9728 for your review

Hi, Mike. Thanks for your replies! We have updated this document per your notes below. Apologies for the missing space before the email address; thank you for catching that! We also removed the " From: Michael Jones > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 5:29 PM > To: 'Lynne Bartholomew' ; Aaron Pare

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Great! So noted (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750). We will prepare this document for publication shortly. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 15, 2025, at 10:53 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Approved. > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:01 AM Lynne Bartholomew > wrote: > Hi, Srinivas a

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Srinivas and Eric. Srinivas, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 Eric, here are the latest files. No new iteration. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org

[auth48] Re: *[Document Shepherd] Re: Sec consideration sec (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Mirja. It appears that you now approve this document for publication. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page accordingly: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9707 Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Feb 18, 2025, at 3:28 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > wrote: > > Hi Jean, >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric. So noted. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Mar 3, 2025, at 6:03 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I have created issues corresponding to the inline RPC comments/questions and > have tagged Lynn in them so she can see progress. > > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:51 AM Jean Mahoney

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Sean. Thanks for letting us know. RFC Editor/lb > On Feb 26, 2025, at 11:33 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > > Just wanted to make you aware that there were two late stage PRs. We are am > running a WGLC on them. That WGLC will close by Friday of next week. > > spt > >> On Feb 24, 2025, at 6:16

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric. Thanks for the quick updates! RFC Editor/lb > On Mar 31, 2025, at 10:53 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I have created a PR to address your comments and detailed how they were > addressed. > > https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/332 > > > 1. Should 'rotation of "last resor

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric and *AD (Paul or Deb). Eric, thank you for making the additional updates and for the latest XML file! We have follow-up items for you and for the AD, as flagged below. * AD: It is difficult for us to determine whether or not some of the new updates to this document might be considere

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9750 for your review

Hi, Eric. Many thanks for addressing our questions and making the file updates! We'll look forward to hearing from you after you've done your final review. RFC Editor/lb > On Mar 24, 2025, at 2:10 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Update: > I have now gone through and addressed all the RPC commen

[auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Hi, Éric. Please note that this document awaits your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9760 Please see the email below re. removing the citation and reference listing for RFC 2026, and let us know if you approve. Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On May 5, 2025, at 9:15 AM, Lynne Ba

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9769 for your review

Hi, Aanchal. A reminder that we do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review the document, and let us know whether additional updates are needed or you approve this document for publication in its current form. The latest files a

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9769 for your review

Hi, Aanchal. No worries! Glad that you have access to your BU email account again. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9769 As we now have approvals from both you and Miroslav, we will prepare this document for publication shortly.

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9760 for your review

Hi, Erik. Thank you for the approval! So noted. Apologies for directing our emails to Éric Vyncke instead of to you. https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9760 We will prepare this document for publication shortly. Thanks again! RFC Editor/lb > On May 13, 2025, at 2:28 PM, Erik Kline wr

[auth48] Re: [SOSPECHOSO] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9820 for your review

Hi, Dan. Thank you for checking in. We'll look forward to hearing from you after you finish the review. RFC Editor/lb > On Jul 24, 2025, at 4:15 AM, Dan Garcia Carrillo wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor, > > We are working on the review and we will send it soon. > > Thank you. > > Best regards,

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9820 for your review

Dear Dan and Rafa, Just checking in to let you know that we are working through your replies below and are most of the way through them. We plan to send you an email on 4 August, with links to the latest files for your review. Thank you for your patience! RFC Editor/lb > On Jul 29, 2025, at

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9820 for your review

Dear Dan, Thank you very much for the updated XML file and answers to our questions! We have some follow-up items for you. Please let us know how this document should be further updated. = = = = = * Please note that per post-6000 published RFCs (except for RFC 8995), we changed '4.04 Not fou