[auth48] Re: Final review in markdown: RFC-to-be 9995 draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope for your review

[Steve Lasker <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Megan,
I approve this version

Steve

> On Jun 29, 2026, at 3:51 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Orie!
>
> We have recorded your approval at the Final Review status page (https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9995/)
>
> Megan Ferguson
> RFC Production Center
>
>> On Jun 29, 2026, at 4:32 PM, Orie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I approve this version of the document, thank you for the changes this auth48 cycle.
>>
>> OS
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 5:25 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Henk, Steve, and Orie,
>>
>> We have converted the MD to XML.
>>
>> At this time, please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs; let us know if any changes are required or if you approve the document for publication.
>>
>> Note that we will consider an approval both your confirmation of the formatting and your final assent that the document is ready for publication.
>>
>> To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, please REPLY ALL to this email.
>>
>> Note: we will only make changes in the XML file from this point on.
>>
>> XML file:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.xml
>>
>> Output files:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt
>>
>> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-lastdiff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> Comprehensive diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> For the status of this document, please see:
>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9995/
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Megan Ferguson
>> RFC Production Center
>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2026, at 11:42 AM, Steve Lasker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Megan,
>>> Thanks for the reminder. I've reviewed and approve the markdown and draft.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2026 3:56 AM
>>> To: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>; Orie <[e-mail]>; Steve Lasker <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: Final review in markdown: RFC-to-be 9995 draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope for your review
>>>
>>> Hi Megan,
>>>
>>> this document is ready to ship! Sorry for the latency. I checked the EDN and CDDL manually and they look consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Viele Grüße,
>>>
>>> Henk
>>>
>>> On 23.06.2026 19:13, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Just a ping that this document awaits author attention.  Please see below for more information.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Megan Ferguson
>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 15, 2026, at 9:05 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Steve and Henk,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just checking in to see if you’ve had a chance to review this one?  Please let us know if you’d like any further updates to the text of if you’d like the document to go forward as is.  Please also see our note regarding AUTH48 in markdown below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Megan Ferguson
>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2026, at 12:53 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Orie!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We’ve recorded your approval of the content at the AUTH48 status page below.
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As this document is markdown, just a reminder about the following (also posted on the above page):
>>>>>>> Note: This document has been edited in markdown. As such, the authors must acknowledge when the content is considered stable enough that the markdown can be converted to XML. At that time, that XML and the output files (i.e., html, pdf, txt) will be provided for review and final approval. Note that all changes will take place in XML once the source file has been converted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Megan Ferguson
>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2026, at 12:30 PM, Orie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had the AI validate the EDN and CDDL one more time, just to be safe.
>>>>>>> This looks good to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:58 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Orie and Henk,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your replies and guidance.  We have updated as suggested.  However, please carefully review our updates in response to question 11 to ensure they match your intention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.md
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The diff files are posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html (comprehensive)
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-lastdiff.html (last version to this)
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Megan Ferguson
>>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2026, at 6:55 AM, Orie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lets go with Henk's reply regarding commas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 7:54 AM Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, maybe my reply never made it out. I have to disagree with Orie on
>>>>>>>> (3) here and I thought that I stated that before (but cannot find a
>>>>>>>> corresponding reply in my Sent box, so here it is "again"):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For consistency over all CDDL, I would propose:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hash_Envelope_Protected_Header = {
>>>>>>>>>     ? &(alg: 1) => int,
>>>>>>>>>     &(payload_hash_alg: 258) => int,
>>>>>>>>>     ? &(payload_preimage_content_type: 259) => uint / tstr,
>>>>>>>>>     ? &(payload_location: 260) => tstr,
>>>>>>>>>     * (int / tstr) => any
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which would be consistent with the previous CDDL block:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hash_Envelope_as_COSE_Sign1 = [
>>>>>>>>>     protected: bstr .cbor Hash_Envelope_Protected_Header,
>>>>>>>>>     unprotected: Hash_Envelope_Unprotected_Header,
>>>>>>>>>     payload: bstr / nil,
>>>>>>>>>     signature: bstr
>>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the variants are correct. This proposal is purely optical and
>>>>>>>> target towards consistency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Viele Grüße,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04.06.26 14:41, Orie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Addressing 3 and 11:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. keep the comma.
>>>>>>>>> 11. use " for values, not `.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 12:30 PM Megan Ferguson
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Hi Orie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Thanks for the reply and guidance!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  We have updated as requested.  We believe questions #3 and #11
>>>>>>>>>  remain unresolved for now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  We have posted the updated files below.  Please review carefully as
>>>>>>>>>  we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  The files are available here (please refresh):
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.md
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.md>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  The diff files are available here (please refresh):
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html> (comprehensive)
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48diff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48
>>>>>>>>>  changes only)
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-auth48rfcdiff.html>
>>>>>>>>>  (side by side)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Megan Ferguson
>>>>>>>>>  RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2026, at 7:15 AM, Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the work on this document!
>>>>>>>>>> Inline for the rest:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 11:56 AM Megan Ferguson
>>>>>>>>>  <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just resending to add Steve’s preferred email to the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2026, at 8:39 PM, [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>>>>>>>  necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>>>>>>>>>  appear in
>>>>>>>>>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Please review and confirm this suggested update
>>>>>>>>>  maintains
>>>>>>>>>>> your intended meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> COSE defined detached payloads in Section 2 of [RFC9052], using
>>>>>>>>>  nil as
>>>>>>>>>>> the payload.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>>>>> Section 2 of [RFC9052] defines detached payloads for COSE,
>>>>>>>>>  using nil
>>>>>>>>>>> as the payload.  -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer your edit to the original here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to add a comma at the
>>>>>>>>>  end of a line in the CDDL:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> &(payload_hash_alg: 258) => int
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>>>> &(payload_hash_alg: 258) => int,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer the comma, though I will admit I have lost track of CDDL
>>>>>>>>>  best practices for this... @Henk Birkholz ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Please review our updates to the following text
>>>>>>>>>  to ensure
>>>>>>>>>>> we have maintained your intended meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, when the actual content is a bstr, a Verifier
>>>>>>>>>  appraising
>>>>>>>>>>> a content-type bstr has to decide if that bstr describes the
>>>>>>>>>  digest
>>>>>>>>>>> bytes or the preimage bytes.  Setting preimage-content-type
>>>>>>>>>  to bstr,
>>>>>>>>>>> makes it clear that the preimage bytes themselves were a bstr.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, when the actual content is a byte string (bstr), a
>>>>>>>>>>> verifier appraising the payload has to decide whether that bstr
>>>>>>>>>>> represents the digest bytes or the preimage bytes.  Setting
>>>>>>>>>>> payload_preimage_content_type to bstr makes it clear that the
>>>>>>>>>>> preimage bytes themselves were a bstr.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Current looks good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We updated the URL for application/spdx+json as
>>>>>>>>>  shown below, as the original was 404. Please review and let us know
>>>>>>>>>  if any corrections are needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/spdx+
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/spdx+>
>>>>>>>>>>> current:
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/spdx+json
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/spdx+json>
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for correcting!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Using "the" before manifest.spdx.json makes it
>>>>>>>>>  feel like a
>>>>>>>>>>> label is missing.  Please review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> The payload of this COSE_Sign1 is the SHA256 hash of the
>>>>>>>>>>> manifest.spdx.json.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "the" could be removed here I think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] Please review if internet should be Internet here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> Verifiers that do not have access to the internet and obtain the
>>>>>>>>>>> preimage via other means will not be able to perform that
>>>>>>>>>  check, nor
>>>>>>>>>>> to derive utility from it.
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it can remain lower case here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] We updated the "Value Registry" column of table
>>>>>>>>>  1 to include references to "CoAP Content-Formats" and "COSE
>>>>>>>>>  Algorithms".  Please review and let us know any concerns.  The
>>>>>>>>>  references have been added as informative references.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because we added a reference to the COSE Algorithms registry,
>>>>>>>>>  we also replaced the URL below with an in text citation.  Please
>>>>>>>>>  review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>>>> Note that when using a pre-hash
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm, the algorithm MUST be registered in the IANA COSE
>>>>>>>>>>> Algorithms registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/>
>>>>>>>>>>> cose.xhtml#algorithms), and MUST be distinguishable from
>>>>>>>>>  non-pre hash
>>>>>>>>>>> variants that may also be present.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>>>> Note that, when using a pre-hash algorithm,
>>>>>>>>>>> the algorithm MUST be registered in the IANA "COSE Algorithms"
>>>>>>>>>>> registry [COSE-Algorithms] and MUST be distinguishable from
>>>>>>>>>  non-pre-
>>>>>>>>>>> hash variants that may also be present.
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looks good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please review the following possible
>>>>>>>>>  inconsistencies with regard to terminology:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> COSE_MAC vs. COSE_Mac
>>>>>>>>>>> SHA-256 vs. SHA256
>>>>>>>>>>> SHA-384 vs. SHA384
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It must be "COSE_Mac" and  "SHA-256".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to
>>>>>>>>>  abbreviation use in the document:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a) Please note that we have expanded abbreviations on first use.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review for accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> b) Would you like to expand SPDX as "System Package Data
>>>>>>>>>  Exchange" on
>>>>>>>>>>> first use?  -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, but expanded as "Software Package Data Exchange" seems like a
>>>>>>>>>  good idea:
>>>>>>>>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange
>>>>>>>>>  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] In the response to our intake form, we saw:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We only use ` ... I suspect we might be better off using " for
>>>>>>>>>  a few
>>>>>>>>>>> values instead of `, and reserve ` for highlighting code points and
>>>>>>>>>>> not examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if/how updates should be made using Old/New
>>>>>>>>>  and/or
>>>>>>>>>>> by updating the edited file directly. -->
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets address this at the end, to avoid chatter, I'm not attached
>>>>>>>>>  to making any changes here, just called it out during intake.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Megan Ferguson and Sandy Ginoza
>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2026, at 4:20 PM, [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your document is now ready for Final Review (previously AUTH48).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC
>>>>>>>>>  pilot test (see
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc>).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the procedures for your review using kramdown-rfc:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once the review is complete, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Files
>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The files are available here:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.md
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.md>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.html>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995.txt>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-diff.html>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diff of the kramdown:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-md-diff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-md-diff.html>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-md-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9995-md-rfcdiff.html> (side
>>>>>>>>>  by side)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995
>>>>>>>>>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9995>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 9995 (draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Title            : COSE Hash Envelope
>>>>>>>>>>> Author(s)        : O. Steele,
>>>>>>>>>>>               S. Lasker,
>>>>>>>>>>>               H. Birkholz
>>>>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Ivaylo Petrov, Michael Jones
>>>>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>