Perfect! This is one that the world has been wanting and waiting for! There
are already normative reference to it both from IETF specs and also W3C, FIDO
Alliance, and OpenID Foundation specifications.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:59 AM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IANA #1434984] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
<draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
Hi, Mike.
We've updated the AUTH48 status page
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864) and will prepare this document for
publication shortly.
Thank you!
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [IANA #1434984] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
> <draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
> Date: October 28, 2025 at 9:50:41 AM PDT
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
>
> Hi, Sabrina. Great! Thank you for the quick fix!
>
> Lynne Bartholomew
> RFC Production Center
>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [IANA #1434984] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
>> <draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>> Date: October 28, 2025 at 9:04:21 AM PDT
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
>>
>> Hi, Sabrina. Thank you for the updates! All looks good, with the exception
>> of this item on <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose>: For the "Ed25519
>> -19" entry, please change "Section 5.1 [RFC8032]" to "Section 5.1 of
>> [RFC8032]".
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> Lynne Bartholomew
>> RFC Production Center
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2025, at 2:26 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lynne,
>>>
>>> These updates have been completed:
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose
>>>
>>> Please let me know if anything was missed.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Sabrina
>
>> On Oct 27, 2025, at 6:28 PM, Michael Jones <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Sabrina. Those updates are correct.
>>
>> We're now just waiting for the IANA approval at
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864 before publication, correct Lynne?
>>
>> Thanks all!
>> -- Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 2:27 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: [IANA #1434984] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864
>> <draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>>
>> Hi Lynne,
>>
>> These updates have been completed:
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose
>>
>> Please let me know if anything was missed.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Sabrina
>>
>> On Thu Oct 23 16:22:25 2025, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Dear IANA,
>>>
>>> Per the author, please make the following updates on
>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/>:
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> Ed25519 EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
>>> Ed448 EdDSA using Ed448 curve
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> Ed25519 EdDSA using the Ed25519 parameter set in Section 5.1 of
>>> [RFC8032]
>>> Ed448 EdDSA using the Ed448 parameter set in Section 5.2 of [RFC8032]
>>>
>>> ===============================
>>>
>>> Per the author (with apologies for anything that's misordered here as
>>> compared to the IANA page; we found the process of listing these
>>> updates very challenging), please make the following updates on
>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/>:
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> Reference
>>> [RFC9053][RFC9054][RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13,
>>> Section 4.3.1]
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> Reference
>>> [RFC9053][RFC9054][RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13,
>>> Section 4.2]
>>> = = = = =
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>> ESB512 -268 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESB384 -267 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESB320 -266 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESB256 -265 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> Ed448 -53 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESP512 -52 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESP384 -51 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> Ed25519 -19 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>> ESP256 -9 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13]
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>> ESB512 -268 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> ESB384 -267 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> ESB320 -266 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> ESB256 -265 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> Ed448 -53 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.2
>>> ESP512 -52 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> ESP384 -51 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>> Ed25519 -19 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.2
>>> ESP256 -9 ... [RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-13], Section
>>> 2.1
>>>
>>> = = = = =
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> Ed448 -53 EdDSA using Ed448 curve
>>> Ed25519 -19 EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> Ed448 -53 EdDSA using the Ed448 parameter set in Section 5.2 of
>>> [RFC8032]
>>> Ed25519 -19 EdDSA using the Ed25519 parameter set in Section 5.1 of
>>> [RFC8032]
>>>
>>> = = = = =
>>>
>>> Please also add "IETF" in the "Change Controller" column for the ES512
>>> entry:
>>> OLD:
>>> ES512 -36 ... [kty] [RFC9053][RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-
>>> algorithms-13]
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> ES512 -36 ... [kty] IETF [RFC9053][RFC-ietf-jose-fully-specified-
>>> algorithms-13]
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>> RFC Production Center
>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Lynne Bartholomew
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Deb. Thank you for the quick reply! So noted:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864
>>>>
>>>> We will send the IANA email shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>
>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 9:04 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I approve.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deb
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:40 AM Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Mike and *Deb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, thank you for the updated XML file!
>>>>>
>>>>> * Deb, please let us know if you approve the change from "must" to
>>>>> "MUST" in Section 3, Paragraph 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, after we receive AD approval, we will ask IANA to make the
>>>>> necessary updates. After the IANA updates are complete, we will
>>>>> prepare this document for publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status
>>>>> page:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864
>>>>>
>>>>> 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-lastdiff.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-lastrfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>> side)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff1.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff2.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2025, at 5:13 PM, Michael Jones
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attached source contains three requested changes relative to
>>>>>> the latest version. They are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff "rfc9864.xml~" rfc9864.xml
>>>>>> 86c86
>>>>>> < Examples are the <tt>Edwards-curve Digital Signature
>>>>>> Algorithm (EdDSA)</tt>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Examples are the Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
>>>>>> 238c238
>>>>>> < The following fully-specified JOSE and COSE
>>>>>> <tt>EdDSA</tt> algorithms are defined by this specification:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> The following fully-specified JOSE and COSE EdDSA algorithms are
>>>>>>> defined by this specification:
>>>>>> 323c323
>>>>>> < the inner "alg" value must specify all parameters for
>>>>>> symmetric encryption.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> the inner "alg" value <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specify all parameters
>>>>>>> for symmetric encryption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the first two changes, EdDSA should only be in <tt>...</tt>
>>>>>> when it is an algorithm identifier - not when it is a designator
>>>>>> for the Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) signature
>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the third change, it makes the spec consistent in its use of
>>>>>> MUST within that sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have reviewed all other changes and agree with them, including
>>>>>> all the hyphenation decisions. Once my three changes above are
>>>>>> incorporated, please mark the document approval status for me as
>>>>>> Yes at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are the next steps to update the IANA registration text that was
>>>>>> changed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks all,
>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 8:26 AM
>>>>>> To: Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Cc: Orie <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Michael Jones
>>>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; jose-
>>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864 <draft-ietf-jose-
>>>>>> fully-specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Deb. Thanks for the quick reply! We have noted your approval:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding your note about hyphenation: We sent the follow-up
>>>>>> question below to Mike on 6 Oct. We're still waiting for his reply
>>>>>> (forgot to ping him in yesterday's 11:55 AM email).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> "fully-specified", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We only hyphenated where "fully specified" is used as a
>>>>>>>>>> modifier. For example, the text still shows "are fully
>>>>>>>>>> specified. ...". There are currently 12 instances of "fully
>>>>>>>>>> specified" (no hyphen). Should we hyphenate all of these as
>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 3:15 PM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tables are fine. I approve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I did notice is that there is a mix of 'fully specified' and
>>>>>>> 'fully-specified' throughout the draft. If that is 'by design',
>>>>>>> then I'm fine with it. If it is not by design, then I suggest
>>>>>>> that we pick one and stick with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 11:55 AM Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Orie and *AD (Deb or Paul).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Deb or Paul, please review the updates to Table 2, Section
>>>>>>> 4.1.1, and Section 4.2.1, and let us know if you approve. (We're
>>>>>>> not sure if these updates could be considered "beyond editorial".)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Orie, as it appears that you approve this document for publication
>>>>>>> in its current form, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48
>>>>>>> status page. Please let us know if we noted your approval in
>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9864
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2025, at 1:39 PM, Orie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I reviewed the diffs. These look good to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:08 AM Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, Mike and Orie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike, we do not believe we have heard from you regarding our 6
>>>>>>>> Oct. email below. Please review, and let us know if further
>>>>>>>> changes are needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Orie, please review the updated files, and let us know if you
>>>>>>>> would like to make any changes. Please refresh your browser to
>>>>>>>> view the latest:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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-lastdiff.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-lastrfcdiff.html (side
>>>>>>>> by side)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff2.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2025, at 11:08 AM, Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forgot to mention that we are keeping track of the IANA updates
>>>>>>>>> that we will need to request just prior to publication.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mike. Thank you for your replies to our questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this question and your reply:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> "fully-specified", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We only hyphenated where "fully specified" is used as a
>>>>>>>>>> modifier. For example, the text still shows "are fully
>>>>>>>>>> specified. ...". There are currently 12 instances of "fully
>>>>>>>>>> specified" (no hyphen). Should we hyphenate all of these as
>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding question 14)b) and your reply:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> alg value (2 instances) / "alg" value (7 instances)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> Let's use "alg" value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also changed 'alg numbers' to '"alg" numbers'; although
>>>>>>>>>> [FIDO2] doesn't use the word "number", we see that "alg" is
>>>>>>>>>> quoted everywhere. Please let us know if we should revert this
>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding question 14)c) and your reply:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> as "The following fully specified JOSE and COSE
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> <tt>EdDSA</tt> algorithms"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We're not sure that we understood your request correctly. We
>>>>>>>>>> updated the example sentence that you listed but are not sure
>>>>>>>>>> if any other sentences need to be updated. Please review. If
>>>>>>>>>> further changes are needed, please specify via "Old" and "New"
>>>>>>>>>> text where we should make additional updates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have also incorporated the updates that you sent on Friday
>>>>>>>>>> (3 Oct.).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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-lastdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>> (side by side)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9864-xmldiff2.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew
>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9864 <draft-ietf-jose-fully-
>>>>>>>>>>> specified-algorithms-13> for your review
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: October 3, 2025 at 3:52:59 AM PDT
>>>>>>>>>>> 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]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One other point of clarification came up before AUTH48 that we
>>>>>>>>>>> should make. These clarifications need to be applied in three
>>>>>>>>>>> sections.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 2.2. Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed25519 parameter set in Section 5.1 of RFC
>>>>>>>>>>> 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed448 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed448 parameter set in Section 5.2 of RFC 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 4.1.1. Fully-Specified JOSE Algorithm Registrations:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed25519 parameter set in Section 5.1 of RFC
>>>>>>>>>>> 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed448 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed448 parameter set in Section 5.2 of RFC 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 4.2.1. Fully-Specified COSE Algorithm Registrations:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed25519 parameter set in Section 5.1 of RFC
>>>>>>>>>>> 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Old:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using Ed448 curve
>>>>>>>>>>> New:
>>>>>>>>>>> EdDSA using the Ed448 parameter set in Section 5.2 of RFC 8032
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2025, at 9:55 AM, Michael Jones
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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")
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> "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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> text wasn't carried forward into the documents that
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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-
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 1_0.html cannot be changed. Please update the reference
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> to match the referenced specification by removing the
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> "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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> signature" are used in the COSE algorithms registry.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> Therefore, the current text is consistent with the
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> as "The following fully specified JOSE and COSE
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <rfc9864.xml>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
