On Feb 8, 2026, at 4:19 PM, Stefan
Halen<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the thorough review and helpful suggestions. Below are the
proposed responses to the [rfced] questions.
Responses to RFC Editor questions
1. References: Please alphabetize the references, alphanumeric order by
citation tag.
2. Keywords: Please add the following keywords for search indexing:
machine-to-machine, trust framework, mutual TLS, mTLS, public key pinning,
SPKI, federation metadata, federation
3. Section reference for “exp”: Yes, please update the reference from Section
6.4 to 6.1.
4. “federation members entities”: Yes. Please update to “entities of federation
members”.
5. Sentence rewording (base_uri, pins, issuers): Yes. Please apply the proposed
rewording.
6. Regarding the mixed use of quotation marks and <tt> tags in Sections 6.1 and
6.1.1:
Please update all "Example" list items in these sections to use <tt> consistently. For
values that are JSON strings, please include the quotation marks inside the <tt> element. For values
that are JSON integers and regular expressions, please use <tt> without quotation marks.
Examples:
- Strings: Example: <tt>"1.0.0"</tt>
- Integers: Example: <tt>1755514949</tt>
- Patterns: Pattern: <tt>^[a-z0-9]{1,64}$</tt>
7. Regarding the "PEM-encoded" comment, please proceed with the updates for
both instances:
- Update to: "For each issuer, the issuer's root CA certificate MUST be included in
the x509certificate property and be encoded by Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM)."
- Update to: "Syntax: Each object contains a PEM-encoded issuer certificate."
8. Section 7.3 and 7.4 sentence adjustments: Acknowledged and approved.
9. References:
a) [Moa]: The updated date (6 October 2025) is fine.
b) [SkolverketMATF]: Please update the date to 4 September 2025 (the XML
currently shows 4 September 2023). This should match commit f8c2e93.
10. Notes and <aside>: Please move the note in Section 6.2 about JSON Schema folding
per RFC 8792 (the paragraph that begins “Note: The schema in Appendix A is folded …”) into
an <aside> element. No other notes need to be moved.
11. Abbreviations and Terminology:
a) MATF expansion: Please update to “Mutually Authenticating TLS in Federations
(MATF)”.
b) FO: Please replace “FO” with “federation operator” in Section 8.1 (and do
not introduce a new abbreviation).
c) RESTful: Please apply the proposed definition addition.
d) “JWK Set” updates: Acknowledged and approved.
e) Other added expansions (SAML, JWS, CAs, SCIM): Reviewed and approved.
12. Inclusive language:
Please update the following terms in the identified instances:
a) “man-in-the-middle” to “on-path attacks”
b) “native” to “built-in”
c) Please replace “traditional certificate revocation mechanisms” with
“standard PKI-based certificate revocation mechanisms”.
Requested text changes (OLD/NEW)
Section 6.1, cache_ttl
OLD:
Specifies the duration in seconds for caching downloaded federation metadata,
allowing for independent caching outside of specific HTTP configurations; this
is particularly useful when the communication mechanism isn't HTTP based. In
the event of a metadata publication outage, members can rely on cached metadata
until it expires, as indicated by the exp claim in the JWS payload, defined in
Section 6.4. Once expired, metadata MUST no longer be trusted. If omitted, a
mechanism to refresh metadata MUST still exist to ensure the metadata remains
valid.
NEW:
Specifies the duration in seconds for caching downloaded federation metadata,
allowing for independent caching outside of specific HTTP configurations. This
is particularly useful when the communication mechanism is not based on HTTP.
In the event of a metadata publication outage, members can rely on cached
metadata until it expires, as indicated by the exp claim in the JWS payload,
defined in Section 6.1. Once expired, metadata MUST no longer be trusted. If
omitted, a mechanism to refresh metadata MUST still exist to ensure the
metadata remains valid.
Section 6.3, Example Metadata
Please list iat before exp for consistency with Section 6.1, and ensure the
example values satisfy iat < exp:
OLD:
"exp": 1755514949,
"iat": 1756119888,
NEW:
"iat": 1755514949,
"exp": 1756119888,
Approval for publication
Publication approval will be provided after the updated files are posted and
reviewed.
Regards,
Stefan Halén
From:[email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 22:34
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>; Stefan
Halen<[email protected]>
Cc:[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]<[email protected]>
Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9932 <draft-halen-fedae-03> for your review
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/02/06
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP –https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
*[email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
*[email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9932
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9932 (draft-halen-fedae-03)
Title : Mutually Authenticating TLS in the context of Federations
Author(s) : J. Schlyter, S. Halen
WG Chair(s) :
Area Director(s) :
