[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert

[Göran Selander <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

If I may, I would like to modify my response from yesterday.

We have some reported bug-fixes that I forgot to mention.

Two of them were reported as issues on the draft GitHub page by a Bouncy Castle developer implementing the draft:
https://github.com/cose-wg/CBOR-certificates/issues
The first is editorial, the second issue at least requires some sentences with considerations.

Another late input is that one of the CBOR encoded extensions, SubjectDirectoryAttributes, is not sufficiently general to support real-world use case encodings, e.g. extension values used in the TCG certificate profile. A straightforward solution from editing point of view would be to remove the definition and registration of this extension.

Considering the progressed state of the draft, how should we handle this?

Best regards,
Göran


From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 31 August 2026 at 23:41
To: Göran Selander <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert

Hi Göran,

Thank you for your reply!

It looks like the cluster was cleared because the other draft was published as RFC 10031.

Unless we hear objection, it looks like the RFC Editor is all set to move this document forward.

Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Aug 31, 2026, at 9:30 AM, Göran Selander <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarah,
>
> Thanks for your patient emails. Sorry for the long delay.
>
> Please see responses inline below.
>
>
> From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, 29 July 2026 at 17:02
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Göran Selander <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below before continuing with the editing process for this document.
>
> Thank you,
> Sarah Tarrant
> RFC Production Center
>
> > On Jul 21, 2026, at 2:07 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Author(s),
> >
> > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor queue!
> > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working with you
> > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce processing time
> > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please confer
> > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a
> > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline communication.
> > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to this
> > message.
> >
> > As you read through the rest of this email:
> >
> > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to make those
> > changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation of diffs,
> > which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc shepherds).
> >
> > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any
> > applicable rationale/comments.
> >
> >
> > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we receive a
> > reply.  We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel that you
> > need to make any updates to the document.  After we hear from you, your document
> > will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our
> > updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48).
> >
> > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at
> > [e-mail].
> >
> > Thank you!
> > The RPC Team
> >
> > --
> >
> > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last Call,
> > please review the current version of the document:
> >
> > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
> > sections current?
> >
>
> Yes, to the best of my knowledge, unless some late change which will may be left for final review.
>
> >
> > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your
> > document. For example:
> >
> > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document,
> > WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information
> > (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in
> > RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at
> > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhttpwg.org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle-guide&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906268492%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IvYddQFGfY9KUGxs19bbwlB8FSLiAUFs%2FinvnQyy3GI%3D&reserved=0>.<https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>").
> >
> > * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that
> > editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization."
> > or  "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used
> > for token names." etc.)?
> >
>
> Throughout the document, there has been an attempt to maintain a common style among data structure encodings, tables, etc. which should be clear from its use. We welcome any feedback on inconsistencies and proposals for remediation.
>
> >
> > 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the
> > References section with the following in mind. Note that we will
> > update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time:
> >
> > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current
> > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322
> > (RFC Style Guide).
>
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-07&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906284345%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cqk%2FPbHcBMYpVVUAXtmOZIjKggoGpK9UaDY34pW7IWE%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-07>
> should be RFC 10031.
>
> This was the only entry I found that needs update.
>
> >
> > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be
> > updated to point to the replacement I-D.
> >
> > * References to documents from other organizations that have been
> > superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
> >
> > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use
> > idnits <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906294155%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Jr9BC3NRu%2FY%2F5YSyNgZFEbdBpCkHqDe0ycifth%2BgxRs%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>>.
> >
> >
> > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example:
> >
> > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted?
>
> No, not really. At a time, there was a discussion about the term “native”, but that discussion died out and has not been discussed lately (e.g. not this year).
>
> >
> > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such
> > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))?
> >
>
> Section 8.0
>
> "Editor's note: Add informative reference to the newly created IANA registries and updated existing registries.”
>
> (and “About this document” of course)
>
>
> > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited
> > the same way?
> >
>
> No, nothing beyond the common style mentioned above.
>
> >
> > 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles.
> > Are these elements used consistently?
> >
> > * fixed width font (<tt/> or `)
> > * italics (<em/> or *)
> > * bold (<strong/> or **)
> >
> >
> > 6) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code
> > snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's
> > XML file). See https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fformal-languages&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906303320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GV1CobmV4Mtaadv%2F6Zf%2FxSTmc90Qq5WJpWoZpptuYLY%3D&reserved=0<https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages>.
>
> Yes, the document contains snippets of CDDL.
>
>
> >
> > * Does it validate?
>
> I have not been able to check.
>
> >
> > * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries
> > and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link
> > above for more information).  Please confirm that this document matches
> > the current guidance for the language type.
> >
> > * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document,
> > please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element
> > for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types
> > at https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906312591%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y8RHxwDYGTprliAmVu48y%2FSYhy93qH4BHsNZKIokPsU%3D&reserved=0.)<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>
> >
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > 7) This document is part of Cluster 582:
> > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqueue.rfc-editor.org%2Fclusters%2F582%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906322216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jcKQDgMCNtMNsgAO6juGvCNYo4A68fut0%2B9XzqJd3Vs%3D&reserved=0<https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/582/>
> >
> > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a
> > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide
> > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly.
> > If order is not important, please let us know.
> >
> > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that
> > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or
> > Security Considerations)?
> >
> > * For more information about clusters, see:
> > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fen%2Frfc-publication-process%23clusters&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906331437%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V98NlEQpjZJTdbad6VUjJ%2B70VJk1KtbhYFY%2Be8ziJaI%3D&reserved=0<https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters>
> >
> > * For a list of all current clusters, see:
> > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqueue.rfc-editor.org%2Fclusters%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cgoran.selander%40ericsson.com%7C29746c81ae094f8bfeb908df07947fb9%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C639238092906340494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vj%2BkbRofUZaL3mV0t4OaL43PUY%2BFr0nLeBg6fOZSda8%3D&reserved=0<https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/>
> >
>
> I couldn’t find this document in any cluster, nor any cluster 582 on the page linked above.
>
>
> > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
> > document?
> >
>
> Not that I can think of.
>
> Unless any author has additional comments by, say, tomorrow, I think you can proceed with the current text.
>
> Best regards,
> Göran Selander