My replies are inline, prefixed by "Mike>".
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Jones
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 4:32 PM
To: 'Lynne Bartholomew' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Orie
<[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]'
<[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>;
'[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]'
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
<draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
Also, please update Orie's author information to:
<author fullname="Orie Steele" initials="O." surname="Steele">
<organization>Tradeverifyd</organization>
<address>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
That's what he asked for in
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jose/draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms/pull/34.
(Yes, I realize that we're past the point of using the GitHub repository
anymore.)
Thanks again,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Jones
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 7:24 AM
To: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
<draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
Thanks, Lynne. That looks good. I'll respond to the rest of the questions
shortly - probably this weekend.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 9:33 AM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
<draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
Hi, Mike. We've applied consistent hyphenation per your request.
Please note that we also hyphenated "fully specified replacements", "fully
specified digital signature algorithm identifiers", "fully specified COSE ECDSA
algorithms", "fully specified encryption", etc., because "fully specified" also
acts as a modifier in these instances.
The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff1.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff2.html
Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect.
Thank you!
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
> On Sep 20, 2025, at 1:40 PM, Michael Jones <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your input, Sandy. I've thought about it since receiving your
> note yesterday, and I'd be more comfortable if we restored the hyphens to the
> compound adjective uses. In particular, please change all instances of
> "fully specified algorithm" back to "fully-specified algorithm".
>
> Yes, CMOS permits the omission of the hyphen. But including the hyphen makes
> it sound like my writing, which I've decided is important to me.
>
> Thanks all!
> -- Mike
>
> P.S. I'll address the other AUTH48 questions shortly.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 3:25 PM
> To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
> Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> Alice Russo <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
> <draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
>> 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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 12:52 PM
>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]
>> 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) -->
Mike> The title in the current XML (using "Fully-Specified") is appropriate.
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.) -->
Mike> This has already been addressed by returning to using "fully-specified",
etc.
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]. -->
Mike> Let's change "COSE Encrypt" to "COSE encryption".
New:
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 <xref target="RFC7516"/> and
<xref target="RFC7518"/>, and
COSE encryption, as described in <xref target="RFC9052"/> and <xref
target="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. -->
Mike> The original text with "MUST specify" is fine.
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. -->
Mike> Let's change
"the key wrapping with AES GCM algorithms"
to
"the algorithms performing key wrapping using AES GCM"
Mike> Let's change
"The JOSE Key Encryption with PBES2 algorithms are fully specified."
to
"The JOSE algorithms performing Key Encryption with PBES2 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://www.iana.org/assignments/jose
"COSE Algorithms" registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose
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.
Mike> I agree with both of those changes.
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]
Mike> Good
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
Mike> Thanks for noting the inconsistency. Please include the section numbers
everywhere.
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
-->
Mike> Please add IETF as the change controller
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]).
-->
Mike> We kept the reference to 8152 because the referenced text wasn't carried
forward into the documents that replaced it. Let's go with this:
New:
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". -->
Mike> Yes, please make the formatting consistent in the way that you suggest.
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". -->
Mike> Yes. 'a variation of the term "Deprecated" is used in the title of
[RFC8996]' works for me.
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://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html>
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://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-
1_0.html>. -->
Mike> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html cannot be
changed. Please update the reference to match the referenced specification by
removing the "B." in this case.
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://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-v2.2-ps-
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://fidoalliance.org/specs/
fido-v2.2-ps-20250714/
fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.2-ps-20250714.html>. -->
Mike> Yes, please apply this correction.
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 ... -->
Mike> Works for me.
13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide at
<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. -->
Mike> I am not aware of any inclusive language changes needed.
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).")
Mike> We decided earlier to go with "fully-specified". No additional changes
are needed in this regard.
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)
Mike> Let's use "alg" value.
enc value ("alg and enc values") / "enc" value (5 instances)
Mike> Let's use "enc" value.
HSS/LMS / HSS-LMS ("HSS/LMS Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm",
"HSS-LMS algorithm")
Mike> Both "HSS-LMS" and "HSS/LMS hash-based digital signature" are used in the
COSE algorithms registry. Therefore, the current text is consistent with the
registry entry. No change is needed.
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" -->
Mike> Please add <tt> where missing for algorithm names, such as "The following
fully specified JOSE and COSE <tt>EdDSA</tt> algorithms"
Thank you.
Lynne Bartholomew and Karen Moore
RFC Production Center
Mike> Thank you!
>> On Sep 18, 2025, at 12:48 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive
>> <[email protected]> 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://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://maila/
>> rchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P
>> 8
>> O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7C%7C761b71ce49ea42e893e008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f
>> 6
>> 40afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638939174977368758%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
>> s
>> b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOI
>> j
>> oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c67E5JmKVA73PwHxHTAjKpB
>> j
>> ckPOveGLD5eLfMLHLPU%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> * The archive itself:
>>
>> https://maila/
>> rchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C
>> 7
>> 61b71ce49ea42e893e008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C
>> 1
>> %7C0%7C638939174977385249%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR
>> y
>> dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D
>> %
>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TaXkq4q%2BqGcE0jxkrRshom%2F30XVg%2BqzoLR82FE1tL
>> K
>> 0%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,
>> [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%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa5
>> 4943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638
>> 943284065580201%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO
>> iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7
>> C%7C%7C&sdata=J%2B%2BbnL37e54MKyJRORpcnBYmCykPfGy8DE5WZCZdWWI%3D&rese
>> rved=0
>>
>> https://www/.
>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa
>> 54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63
>> 8943284065596919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYi
>> OiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%
>> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=q01yZ03I%2FviVW6nDhK2aVURwm9IVrZ0tretGnwYSYqQ%3D&reser
>> ved=0
>>
>> https://www/.
>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa5
>> 4943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638
>> 943284065613325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO
>> iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7
>> C%7C%7C&sdata=9AWfQDiclBkvJu%2FRag2iAWy82RqR%2FiBXZ0%2BjGOJGzqE%3D&re
>> served=0
>>
>> https://www/.
>> r%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f
>> 640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638943284065629453%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF
>> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kB71H%2F%2B2fbtM%2BI
>> t8vVSL56Va42PeWdjLFpCcaQV3zrY%3D&reserved=0
>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C761b71ce49ea4
>> 2
>> e893e008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63893
>> 9
>> 174977450136%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIw
>> L
>> jAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C
>> %
>> 7C&sdata=Sw4hdekzH6euwekPdmkgArRgDE9jxN%2FBbxniPqBXGb4%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>
>> https://www/.
>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2d
>> f0daa54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0
>> %7C638943284065645773%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU
>> sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D
>> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=61beAaISKTA9xH5PalRDeAINUUCL23Ie3dDucrqSf9Q%3D&re
>> served=0
>>
>> https://www/.
>> r%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f
>> 640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638943284065664319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF
>> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VZi1WfQUh8aqDbh5FgtP
>> 3BCPWS3qiwliQEcgLAhf33g%3D&reserved=0
>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C761b
>> 7
>> 1ce49ea42e893e008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C
>> 0
>> %7C638939174977482323%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU
>> s
>> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%
>> 7
>> C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EvN4SdkHmBnKNv4SjQPMZT3Crd9P%2FAdrRVzHTQJ50WU%3D&re
>> s
>> erved=0 (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>
>> https://www/.
>> r%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f
>> 640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638943284065680577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF
>> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mQFxALBZrQ5Egd7CsSIS
>> j3tosB3tyHFlqc8mZAYgoCk%3D&reserved=0
>> fc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9864-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C761
>> b
>> 71ce49ea42e893e008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7
>> C
>> 0%7C638939174977501023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydW
>> U
>> sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D
>> %
>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zb%2BxMfmrtEW4EzQuOyYybMEbf%2BPxJ%2FYy1xLdb5VWkig%
>> 3
>> D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>
>> https://www/.
>> r%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C91aa2df0daa54943e1e708ddfb881343%7C84df9e7fe9f
>> 640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638943284065697092%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF
>> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OKWb9Ta3CEbIuo8DrYng
>> nphBXzbyeulO%2FcvFWk1vADw%3D&reserved=0
>> fc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9864&data=05%7C02%7C%7C761b71ce49ea42e893
>> e
>> 008ddf7cb5bc1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6389391749
>> 7
>> 7517704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuM
>> D
>> AwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
>> d
>> ata=IqovDgFGL85gX%2B3TddI%2FRyWRSVYSIszXtFZnxn1f9%2Bs%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 -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
