All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701
As this document is part of Cluster C444, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C444 We will move this document forward in the publication process once the other necessary documents in the cluster complete AUTH48 as well. Please let us know if you have any questions. RFC Editor/ap > On Dec 12, 2024, at 8:42 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > > The changes look good. Thank you! > >> On Dec 11, 2024, at 9:46 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> These changes are complete: >> >> On Mon Dec 09 21:54:43 2024, [email protected] wrote: >>> IANA, >>> >>> Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document >>> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html. >>> >>> >>> 1) Please remove the periods from the following descriptions in the >>> "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata” registry >>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth- >>> parameters.xhtml#client-metadata>. >>> >>> Old: >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_signed_response_alg >>> Client Metadata Description: String value indicating the client’s >>> desired introspection response signing algorithm. >>> >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_encrypted_response_alg >>> Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired >>> introspection response content key encryption algorithm (alg >>> value). >>> >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_encrypted_response_enc >>> Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired >>> introspection response content encryption algorithm (enc value). >>> >>> New: >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_signed_response_alg >>> Client Metadata Description: String value indicating the client’s >>> desired introspection response signing algorithm >>> >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_encrypted_response_alg >>> Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired >>> introspection response content key encryption algorithm (alg >>> value) >>> >>> Client Metadata Name: introspection_encrypted_response_enc >>> Client Metadata Description: String value specifying the desired >>> introspection response content encryption algorithm (enc value) >> >> Done: https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters >> >>> 2) Please remove the periods from the following descriptions in the >>> "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata” registry >>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth- >>> parameters.xhtml#authorization-server-metadata>. >>> >>> Old: >>> Metadata Name: “introspection_signing_alg_values_supported" >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >>> supported by the authorization server for introspection response >>> signing. >>> >>> Metadata Name: “introspection_encryption_alg_values_supported" >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >>> supported by the authorization server for introspection response >>> content key encryption (alg value). >>> >>> Metadata Name: “introspection_encryption_enc_values_supported” >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >>> supported by the authorization server for introspection response >>> content encryption (enc value). >>> >>> New: >>> Metadata Name: introspection_signing_alg_values_supported >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >> >> [looks like this was cut off by mistake; I've removed only the closing >> period, per the revised document] >> >>> Metadata Name: introspection_encryption_alg_values_supported >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >>> supported by the authorization server for introspection response >>> content key encryption (alg value) >>> >>> Metadata Name: introspection_encryption_enc_values_supported >>> Metadata Description: JSON array containing a list of algorithms >>> supported by the authorization server for introspection response >>> content encryption (enc value) >> >> Done: https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters >> >>> 3) Please update the "application/token-introspection+jwt" media type >>> entry in the “Media Types" registry >>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/token- >>> introspection+jwt> by removing the bullets. Additionally, make the >>> following updates to the content: >>> >>> -update the semicolon after “binary” to a period >>> -update Section 7 to be Section 8 in the Security considerations line >>> -remove the “* Provisional registration? No” line >>> >>> Old: >>> * Encoding considerations: binary; A token introspection response >>> is >>> a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded >>> values (with trailing '=' characters removed), some of which may >>> be the empty string, separated by period ('.') characters. >>> >>> * Security considerations: See Section 7 of RFC-ietf-oauth-jwt- >>> introspection-response-12 >>> >>> * Provisional registration? No >>> >>> New: >>> Encoding considerations: binary. A token introspection response is >>> a >>> JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded >>> values >>> (with trailing '=' characters removed), some of which may be the >>> empty >>> string, separated by period ('.') characters. >>> >>> Security considerations: See Section 8 of RFC-ietf-oauth-jwt- >>> introspection-response-12 >> >> Done: >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/token-introspection+jwt >> >> I've also removed the leading asterisks. >> >> thanks, >> Amanda >> >>> Best regards, >>> RFC Editor/ap >>> >>>> On Dec 9, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Vladimir, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your approval. It has been noted: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 >>>> >>>> We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the >>>> IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication >>>> process. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>> >>>>> On Dec 9, 2024, at 9:35 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov / Connect2id >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alanna, >>>>> >>>>> I reviewed the changes and they look good. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Vladimir Dzhuvinov >>>>> >>>>> On 09/12/2024 18:37, Alanna Paloma wrote: >>>>>> Hi Torsten, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your approval. We have noted it on the AUTH48 status >>>>>> page: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 >>>>>> >>>>>> Once we receive Vladimir’s approval, we will move this document >>>>>> forward in the publication process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2024, at 7:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HI Alanna, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thank you so much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I approve this revision for publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best regards, >>>>>>> Torsten. >>>>>>> Am 2. Dez. 2024, 19:32 +0100 schrieb Alanna Paloma >>>>>>> <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> Hi Torsten, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html >>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any >>>>>>>> further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes >>>>>>>> once a document is published as an RFC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 >>>>>>>> status page below prior to moving this document forward in the >>>>>>>> publication process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2024, at 2:51 AM, >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> please find my responses inline. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> best regards, >>>>>>>>> Torsten. >>>>>>>>> Am 16. Nov. 2024, 22:13 +0100 schrieb [email protected]: >>>>>>>>> Authors, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML >>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC >>>>>>>>> 7322 >>>>>>>>> ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Current: >>>>>>>>> JSON Web Token (JWT) Response for OAuth Token Introspection >>>>>>>>> --> Ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] FYI, regarding the use of <tt> within this >>>>>>>>> document, it renders >>>>>>>>> (using xml2rfc) in fixed-width font in the HTML and PDF files. >>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>> the rendering of <tt> in the text file was changed in September >>>>>>>>> 2021 - >>>>>>>>> quotation marks are no longer added. When you review the diff >>>>>>>>> file for >>>>>>>>> this document, it will appear that the RPC removed quotation >>>>>>>>> marks; >>>>>>>>> however, actually this is due to the rendering change for <tt>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (For details, see the release notes for v3.10.0 on >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Examples of where <tt> is used in the original (and remains): >>>>>>>>> alg value, enc value >>>>>>>>> Accept HTTP header field >>>>>>>>> aud claim, token_introspection claim >>>>>>>>> typ JWT header >>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this is acceptable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows, to >>>>>>>>> clarify the >>>>>>>>> phrase "additional JSON Web Token (JWT) secured response"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> This specification proposes an additional JSON Web Token (JWT) >>>>>>>>> secured response for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>> This specification proposes an additional response secured by >>>>>>>>> JSON Web Token (JWT) for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection. >>>>>>>>> --> wfm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the latter part of this sentence. >>>>>>>>> What is "identifying it as subject" referring to? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> Authentication can utilize client authentication methods >>>>>>>>> or a separate access token issued to the resource server and >>>>>>>>> identifying it as subject. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps (referring to the resource server): >>>>>>>>> Authentication can utilize client authentication methods >>>>>>>>> or a separate access token issued to the RS to >>>>>>>>> identify the RS as the subject. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or (also referring to the resource server): >>>>>>>>> Authentication can utilize client authentication methods >>>>>>>>> or a separate access token that is issued to the RS and >>>>>>>>> identifies the RS as the subject. >>>>>>>>> --> Please use this text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this >>>>>>>>> sentence, >>>>>>>>> specifically "a dedicated containing JWT claim". How should >>>>>>>>> it be updated? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> The separation of the introspection response >>>>>>>>> members into a dedicated containing JWT claim is intended to >>>>>>>>> prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that >>>>>>>>> may bear the same name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>> The separation of the introspection response >>>>>>>>> members into a dedicated, contained JWT claim is intended to >>>>>>>>> prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that >>>>>>>>> may bear the same name. >>>>>>>>> --> It seems we missed one important word „JSON object“. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The separation of the introspection response >>>>>>>>> members into a dedicated JSON object, containing JWT claim is >>>>>>>>> intended to >>>>>>>>> prevent conflict and confusion with top-level JWT claims that >>>>>>>>> may bear the same name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this >>>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >>>>>>>>> content that surrounds it" >>>>>>>>> (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2). >>>>>>>>> --> Our notes are not less important than the rest of the text. >>>>>>>>> It is more like „please consider“. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be 9700) >>>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>> have a Section 3.2. How this should be updated? Please >>>>>>>>> see https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9700.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures >>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>> replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics], section >>>>>>>>> 3.2. >>>>>>>>> --> 3.2. has become 2.2. I would nevertheless change the text to >>>>>>>>> referring to the draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics (RFC-to-be >>>>>>>>> 9700) more general and frame the topic more precisely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is my proposal: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Resource servers MUST additionally apply the countermeasures >>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>> access token replay as described in [I-D.ietf-oauth-security- >>>>>>>>> topics]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] RFC 7525 has been obsoleted by RFC 9325. Also, >>>>>>>>> RFC 7525 is no longer part of BCP 195. How should this sentence >>>>>>>>> be updated? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>> The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) >>>>>>>>> 1.2 >>>>>>>>> (or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC7525] in order to prevent token data >>>>>>>>> leakage. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps (A), if simple replacement is accurate: >>>>>>>>> The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) >>>>>>>>> 1.2 >>>>>>>>> (or higher) per BCP 195 [RFC9325] in order to prevent token data >>>>>>>>> leakage. Please use this text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or (B), if referencing the whole BCP (RFC 8996 + RFC 9325) is >>>>>>>>> accurate: >>>>>>>>> The authorization server MUST use Transport Layer Security (TLS) >>>>>>>>> 1.2 >>>>>>>>> (or higher) per [BCP195] in order to prevent token data leakage. >>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] FYI, in Sections 10.1.1, 10.2.1, and 10.4.1, >>>>>>>>> the change controller has been updated from "IESG" to "IETF" to >>>>>>>>> match >>>>>>>>> the actual IANA registries. This was noted as follows in the >>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>> from IANA: "Note: in accordance with recent practice, the change >>>>>>>>> controller >>>>>>>>> for these registrations has been changed from the IESG to the >>>>>>>>> IETF." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with IANA's "Guidance for RFC Authors" (on >>>>>>>>> https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration): >>>>>>>>> "The IESG shouldn't be listed as a change controller unless the >>>>>>>>> RFC that >>>>>>>>> created the registry (e.g. port numbers, XML namespaces and >>>>>>>>> schemas) >>>>>>>>> requires it. The IETF should be named instead." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have also updated the change controller in Section 10.3.1 >>>>>>>>> accordingly. I guess you mean 11.3.1? >>>>>>>>> If that is not accurate, please let us know. >>>>>>>>> --> wfm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] For sourcecode elements, please consider >>>>>>>>> whether the >>>>>>>>> "type" attribute should be set and/or has been set correctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at >>>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode- >>>>>>>>> types>. >>>>>>>>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel >>>>>>>>> free to >>>>>>>>> suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also >>>>>>>>> acceptable >>>>>>>>> to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>>>>>>> --> 1 and 2 -> http-message >>>>>>>>> 3 and 4 -> json >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion >>>>>>>>> of the online >>>>>>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I reviewed the >>>>>>>>> document using the guidance given by the NIST documents and >>>>>>>>> don’t see any issues with the current text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. Thank you for your hard work! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/ar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2024, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Updated 2024/11/16 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/faq/). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * [email protected] (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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing >>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>>>>>>>> list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * More info: >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh- >>>>>>>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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, >>>>>>>>> [email protected] 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>>>>>> side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-xmldiff1.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> RFC9701 (draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-12) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title : JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection >>>>>>>>> Author(s) : T. Lodderstedt, Ed., V. Dzhuvinov >>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Hannes Tschofenig, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef >>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
