hi Alice, On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 at 20:23, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thomas, > > Thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised files > are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > -- Re: #1, FYI, we reverted to not expand "CBOR" in the title and abstract. > This is in keeping with the titles of recent RFCs (e.g., RFCs 9864, 9679, > 9596) and avoids having an acronymn expansion within an acronym expansion. > > Original: > COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens > > Current: > CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Header Parameter for Timestamp > Tokens as Defined in RFC 3161 > > > Regarding "CBOR": It is expanded in Section 3.1 (the first instance outside > the context of "COSE"). Just let us know if you prefer to add a reference to > RFC 8949, or a sentence that expands CBOR earlier.
OK > -- Re: #4 (usage of "primary"), no changes needed. OK > -- Re: #6 (MessageImprint in this document vs. messageImprint in RFC 3161) > > > Perhaps we should do this: > > * MessageImprint, when referring to the type; > > * messageImprint, when referring to the value. > > However, there may be a non-zero risk of introducing some confusion. > > WDYT? > > If the current usage (all 'MessageImprint' in this document) is sufficiently > clear, then we suggest leaving it as is in order to avoid introducing > confusion. OK, thanks for the sound advice. > -- Re: #10 (use of the OID from freeTSA.org, as detailed in your reply) > > Thank you for this information. Because the Internet-Draft was approved with > this OID in the examples in Appendices A.1 and A.2, we will assume it’s fine > to leave it unless someone suggests otherwise. Apparently, no one noticed it. In any case, it doesn't look like a substantial problem. > -- Re: #12b (Terminology) > > >> COSE signed object vs. signed COSE object > > > > COSE signer object > > We updated to "COSE signed object", assuming "signed" not "signer" was > intended; please review. Yes, sorry for the typo, I meant "signed". > FYI, there remain 2 instances of "signed COSE message". (Of note: We see > zero instances of "COSE signed object" in existing RFCs. We see "COSE Signed > Message" in RFC 9052.) Consistency with 9052 seems like an excellent objective. We could do a wholesale change: * s/COSE signed object/COSE Signed Message/g * s/signed COSE message/COSE Signed Message/g > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9921 > > Thank you. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center Thank you! -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
