Hi Henk, Thanks for your reply. Re: > the changes look got to me and I approve publication.
We've recorded your approval on the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9921). Re: > Just two tiny nits - please feel to ignore. The usage of 'bstr wrapper' now > seems to be inconsistent, and STD70 only consists of RFC5652 which renders > the replacement kinda moot? 1. The hyphen is used in the adjective form only, i.e., bstr-wrapped as an adjective bstr wrapping as a noun (This is similar to 'a rate-limited approach' vs. 'rate limiting is used'.) 2. Yes, currently STD 70 == RFC 5652. We recommend referencing the RFC directly unless you want readers to be aware of any future additions to the STD (that is, the STD identifier is essentially a container of RFCs. The URL for the STD would show the reader any RFCs that make up the STD.) Please let us know if you would like any updates. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Feb 19, 2026, at 9:58 AM, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > the changes look got to me and I approve publication. > > Just two tiny nits - please feel to ignore. The usage of 'bstr wrapper' now > seems to be inconsistent, and STD70 only consists of RFC5652 which renders > the replacement kinda moot? > > > Viele Grüße, > > Henk > > On 19.02.26 09:43, Thomas Fossati wrote: >> Hi Alice! >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 23:40, Alice Russo <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Thomas, >>> >>> On Aug 28, 2025, in reply to the intake form, you wrote: >>>> Yes: the examples in Appendix A need to be recomputed as soon as IANA >>>> makes the allocations. >>>> We have scripts in place for that, so the update should take very >>>> little time when the time comes. >>>> We put a note for you there just in case. >>> >>> >>> Do the examples need to be recomputed at this time? >> No, that was done in -08 [1] >> [1] >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-07&url2=draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-08&difftype=--html >>> Re: >>>> 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 >>> >>> These terms have been updated; please review. >> Thanks, will do it shortly. >> cheers! >>> Thank you for your replies. 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) >>> >>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9921-lastrfcdiff.html >>> >>> 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 >>> >>>> On Feb 17, 2026, at 2:07 AM, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
