Greetings authors, all, We have reviewed the changes made to this document.
Please see <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-lastrfcdiff.html> for the editorial changes made on our end. (Note that this file only shows the changes made between the last and current version of this document; additional diff files showing all changes are posted at the end of this email.) While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve the following questions regarding this newest version, which are also in the source file. Please see the first email in this thread for additional AUTH48 instructions, if needed. 1) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, does "which are stored" refer to "each federation endpoint"? If so, may we update "are" to "is" as follows (as "each" is grammatically singular)? Original: Public key pinning associates one or more unique public keys with each federation endpoint, which are stored in the federation metadata. Perhaps: Public key pinning associates one or more unique public keys with each federation endpoint, which is stored in the federation metadata. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3: FYI, we have updated the sentence below as follows. Please review. Original: Line breaks in the example of the <tt>issuers</tt> claim are for readability only. Current: Line breaks in the <tt>issuers</tt> claim example are for readability only. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions regarding the reference [eIDAS]: a) This reference appears to have a more up to date and consolidated version. Would you like to reference this updated version instead? This newest version is available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014R0910-20241018. b) FYI, please note that we have updated the title of this reference to match the title of the document at the provided link. Please review and let us know any objections. --> We look forward to hearing from you. — FILES (please refresh): — The updated files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.xml Diff files showing changes between the last and current version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-rfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9932 All the best, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Feb 17, 2026, at 5:17 PM, Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eliot, > > Thanks for the update. > > We can keep this document in AUTH48 state (with the same assigned RFC number) > while you and the authors complete the review. > > In the meantime, we will not make any additional changes or updates to this > document until we receive your approval. > > We have also noted this on the AUTH48 status page for this document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9932 > > You may find the most up-to-date files below (note that they do not contain > these most recent author updates): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.html > > Thanks and all best, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > >> On Feb 17, 2026, at 1:12 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Kaelin, >> I don't think any of this is fatal, but it does require some work, and I >> don't think it makes sense to use RPC resources while the authors and I go >> through the details. What I expect is that we will base our work on the >> work that you have done, so for the time being, my request is to HOLD the >> RFC # for the next several weeks. If I find that we cannot resolve issues >> by then, I will inform you. >> I would like to confirm though that you have released the draft for now, so >> that we can continue work. I will resubmit to the RPC in due course. >> Does that work? >> Eliot >> On 17.02.2026 18:33, Kaelin Foody wrote: >>> Hi Eliot, >>> >>> Thanks for your message. >>> >>> We believe you mean that this document is not ready for publication (and >>> that it may or may not be re-approved in the future). If so, we will remove >>> it from our queue and will reassign the RFC number. >>> >>> Let us know if this is suitable and if you need anything else on our end. >>> >>> All best, >>> >>> Kaelin Foody >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2026, at 3:30 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Authors, >>>> >>>> Given the level of changers proposed, I conclude that the specification >>>> contained within this draft RFC is not stable. Therefore, I ask that the >>>> RPC return control of this draft to the ISE for further consideration. I >>>> appreciate that these changes may have come about based on operational >>>> experience. I have substantial concerns over some of them, and some >>>> changes are gratuitous in nature. I appreciate the RPC's efforts to ready >>>> this document for publication, but the reader will not be well served >>>> without further technical review. We will attempt to continue changes from >>>> the draft RFC as best we can. >>>> >>>> Authors are requested to make no changes until you receive further >>>> instructions from me. >>>> >>>> Eliot >>>> >>>> On 16.02.2026 02:09, Stefan Halen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached an updated XML for RFC 9932. >>>>> >>>>> After a comprehensive review, I identified several areas where the >>>>> technical logic required further precision to ensure secure >>>>> implementation. This version includes substantive clarifications >>>>> regarding: >>>>> >>>>> • Intermediary Behavior: Strengthening the security requirements for >>>>> identity propagation when TLS is terminated before the application. >>>>> • Trust Resolution: Clarifying how entity_id resolution relies on pin >>>>> uniqueness in metadata. >>>>> • Client Logic: Streamlining the connection and validation steps for >>>>> better internal consistency. >>>>> >>>>> My co-author is cc'd on this message and is in agreement with these final >>>>> technical refinements. >>>>> >>>>> I recognize that these updates are submitted late in the process. I >>>>> believe they significantly improve the document's quality and robustness >>>>> for implementers. Thank you for accommodating them. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Stefan Halén >>>>> From: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 18:39 >>>>> To: Stefan Halen <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9932 <draft-halen-fedae-03> for your review >>>>> Hi Stefan, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your quick and thorough response. We have updated the >>>>> document accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> Note that we have updated <tt> usage in the XML file per your request >>>>> below. Please review our updates to ensure that they are accurate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or with >>>>> your approval of the document in its current form. >>>>> >>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on this document's AUTH48 >>>>> status page prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>>> >>>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9932 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> — FILES (please refresh): — >>>>> >>>>> The updated files have been posted here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.txt >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.pdf >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932.xml >>>>> >>>>> Diff files showing changes made during AUTH48: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-auth48diff.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>> side) >>>>> >>>>> Diff files showing all changes: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-diff.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9932-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Kaelin Foody >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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) : >>>>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
