[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9942 <draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henk,

Looks like we need author approvals of the document as it appears in the links below.

Additionally, if an author can confirm that all of the following can be marked as resolved, we can mark them as such on the Final Review / AUTH48 status page; we assume the document already appears as intended for these items; overt confirmation of that fact would be appreciated (apologies if a response to these has already been sent, but I don’t see a reply in mail when scanning through).

> 
> 2) We believe that the use of # in the EDN (it was switched to “/" at one point) is intentional (so that an ending delimiter is not necessary).  Please review and confirm.  Related author communication summarized below for convenience:
>> Finally, several EDN snippets (Figures 2, 6 and 9) incorrectly use # comment, when the correct EDN syntax is / comment /. For example:
>> / algorithm / 1 : -7,  # ES256
>> 
>> 
>> Should be:
>> 
>> / algorithm / 1 : -7,  / ES256 /
> 
> However, later:
> 
>> Furthermore, the EDN is currently broken. An EDN comment that starts with a "/" must also end with a "/". Alternatively, at the end of a line a comment that starts with a "#" does not require an ending delimiter. I'd prefer using "#" when there is a comment at the end of a line.
> 
> 
> I don't have a strong preference, if switching to "/" instead of "#" helps, that's fine.
> 
> Note that "#" is valid for: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-25#section-2.2
[rfced] We leave the decision of which is correct to use entirely up to the authors.  If anyone has an objection to leaving this as is, please raise it now.


> 3) Please review the use of commas in the CDDL and let us know if any further changes are desired:
> 
>> Currently, all CDDL definitions use comma inconsistently. This not "wrong" but really bad style. In my opinion, we should get rid of all commas.
> 
> 
> @Henk Birkholz said he prefers to remove the commas, lets go with his recommendation.

[rfced] We have removed all commas from any <sourcecode> with type CDDL.  Please review and let us know if any further updates are necessary.

> 5) Regarding this question/answer pair from April 14:
> 
> <!--[rfced] This sentence doesn't seem to parse.  Please rephrase.
> 
> Original:
> First the verifier applies the inclusion proof to a possible entry
> (set member) bytes.
> 
> -->
> 
> <!--[authors] We think the current sentence with the comma parses correctly.
> —>
> 
> This text still does not parse for us… Please review and approve our further update to the first sentence of Section 4.2. 
> Previous:
> 
>   Similar to COSE Key Type Parameters [IANA.cose_header-parameters],
>   for example EC2 keys (1: 2) require and give meaning to specific
>   parameters, such as -1 (crv), -2 (x), -3 (y), -4 (d).  
> Current:
>   As is the case for COSE Key Type Parameters
>   [IANA.cose_header-parameters], EC2 keys (1: 2) require and give
>   meaning to specific parameters, such as -1 (crv), -2 (x), -3 (y), and
>   -4 (d).  RFC9162_SHA256 (395: 1) supports both (-1) inclusion and
>   (-2) consistency proofs.

[rfced] We didn’t see any reply related to this update.  Please confirm that this update works (and this question was not overlooked).


The current files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.html

Diffs highlighting the last 2 rounds of updates:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastdiff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)

AUTH48 diffs:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Comprehensive diffs:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

You can view the Final Review / AUTH48 status page here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9942

Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center

> On Jun 28, 2026, at 5:07 AM, Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sandy,
> 
> quick question. Is there anything left for the authors/editors or RFCed to do? Or can we move on to approval from here?
> 
> 
> Viele Grüße,
> 
> Henk
> 
> On 17.06.2026 18:18, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
>> Hi Henk and Orie,
>> Our mistake for not including the closing bracket in the snippet below.  The closing bracket is in the document itself.
>> It appears as follows:
>> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof =
>>   bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>   tree_size_1: uint,
>>   tree_size_2: uint,
>>   consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>> ]
>> Thanks for doublechecking us on this!
>> Sandy Ginoza
>> RFC Production Center
>>> On Jun 17, 2026, at 8:28 AM, Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 17.06.2026 16:40, Orie wrote:
>>>> Looks correct to me, but note that there must be a closing "]" for the content to be a valid list.
>>> 
>>> Just to be on the save side, we mean like this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof =
>>>  bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>> 
>>> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>>  tree_size_1: uint,
>>>  tree_size_2: uint,
>>>  consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>>> ]
>>> 
>>>> OS
>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 9:38 AM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]- editor.org <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>    Hi Orie,
>>>>    Thanks for your reply and the explanation.  We have updated the line
>>>>    breaks as described below.  In addition, we outdented the three
>>>>    lines following “RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content” by one
>>>>    character for consistency.  Please let us know if this is incorrect.
>>>>    Old:
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof =
>>>>       bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>>>        tree_size_1: uint,
>>>>        tree_size_2: uint,
>>>>        consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>    Current:
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof =
>>>>       bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>>>       tree_size_1: uint,
>>>>       tree_size_2: uint,
>>>>       consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>    The current files are available here:
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.txt <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.txt>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.pdf <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.pdf>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.html <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.html>
>>>>    Diffs highlighting the last 2 rounds of updates:
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastdiff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastdiff.html>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html> (side
>>>>    by side)
>>>>    AUTH48 diffs:
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48diff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48diff.html>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html>
>>>>    (side by side)
>>>>    Comprehensive diffs:
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-diff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-diff.html>
>>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-rfcdiff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>    Please review the document and let us know if any additional updates
>>>>    are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication.
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>    Sandy Ginoza
>>>>    RFC Production Center
>>>>     > On Jun 17, 2026, at 6:59 AM, Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Thanks. Please break each of the two lines immediately after the
>>>>    =, indenting the bstr .cbor … continuation by two spaces, as the
>>>>    document already does for the protected-header members (e.g. the
>>>>    bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Protected_Header line):
>>>>     >
>>>>     > ▎
>>>>     > ▎ RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof =
>>>>     > ▎   bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content
>>>>     > ▎ RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof =
>>>>     > ▎   bstr .cbor RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>     > ▎
>>>>     > ▎ This keeps every line within the 69-character limit and the
>>>>    CDDL still validates cleanly (longest line is now 63 characters).
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Regards,
>>>>     >
>>>>     > OS
>>>>     >
>>>>     > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 1:19 PM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]-
>>>>    editor.org <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > Hi Orie, Authors,
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Thank you for your help and patience!  I think we may have
>>>>    mistakenly downloaded the wrong file from GitHub, which is why we
>>>>    were not seeing many of the updates you had incorporated.  We have
>>>>    updated the document as shown in <https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-
>>>>    ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/pull/115 <https://github.com/cose-wg/
>>>>    draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/pull/115>>.  Unfortunately, two
>>>>    lines run well beyond the 69-character limit for sourcecode.  Please
>>>>    let us know how these lines can be broken.
>>>>     >
>>>>     > rfc9942.xml(197): Warning: Too long line found (L292), 13
>>>>    characters longer than 72 characters:
>>>>     >    RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content
>>>>     > rfc9942.xml(197): Warning: Too long line found (L330), 17
>>>>    characters longer than 72 characters:         RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > The current set of files are available here:
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.txt <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.txt>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.pdf <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.pdf>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.html <https://www.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org/authors/rfc9942.html>
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only:
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastdiff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastdiff.html>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html> (side
>>>>    by side)
>>>>     >
>>>>     > AUTH48 diffs:
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48diff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48diff.html>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html>
>>>>    (side by side)
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Comprehensive diffs:
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-diff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-diff.html>
>>>>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-rfcdiff.html <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Thank you,
>>>>     > Sandy Ginoza
>>>>     > RFC Production Center
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > > On Jun 16, 2026, at 6:32 AM, Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Hi,
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > I've raised this PR to show the differences between the RFC
>>>>    Editor Auth48 version of the XML, and the one in the github repo for
>>>>    the draft:
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/
>>>>    pull/115 <https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-
>>>>    proofs/pull/115>
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > It's possible you have already corrected things since the last
>>>>    email.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Let me know how I can help, sorry for the confusion.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Regards,
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > OS
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 6:03 AM Amaury Chamayou
>>>>    <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > Hi Megan,
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Apologies for jumping in, but the changes that I can see
>>>>    between https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml
>>>>    <https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml>
>>>>    (which is what https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml
>>>>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml> redirects to) and
>>>>    what Orie has sent are minimal as far as I can tell (commands
>>>>    executed below).
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cose-wg/draft-
>>>>    ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/
>>>>    df5113e94e6b6788de0bfb112db63726516b88ab/auth48/rfc9942.xml
>>>>    <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-proofs/df5113e94e6b6788de0bfb112db63726516b88ab/auth48/
>>>>    rfc9942.xml> -o /tmp/rfc9942_github.xml
>>>>     > > curl -fsSL "https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/
>>>>    rfc9942.xml <https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/
>>>>    rfc9942.xml>" -o /tmp/rfc9942_auth48.xml
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > diff -u /tmp/rfc9942_auth48.xml /tmp/rfc9942_github.xml
>>>>     > > --- /tmp/rfc9942_auth48.xml     2026-06-16 10:53:46.885055080 +0000
>>>>     > > +++ /tmp/rfc9942_github.xml     2026-06-16 10:56:07.878045062 +0000
>>>>     > > @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@
>>>>     > >  <figure anchor="fig-receipts-cddl">
>>>>     > >            <name>CDDL for a COSE_Sign1 with Attached Receipts</
>>>>    name>
>>>>     > >            <sourcecode type="cddl"><![CDATA[
>>>>     > > -Signature_With_Receipt = /6.18(COSE_Sign1)
>>>>     > > +Signature_With_Receipt = #6.18(COSE_Sign1)
>>>>     > >    cose-label = int / text
>>>>     > >  cose-values = any
>>>>     > > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
>>>>     > >  ; Other VDSs may have different proof formats.
>>>>     > >     -Receipt_For_Inclusion = /6.18(Signed_Inclusion_Proof)
>>>>     > > +Receipt_For_Inclusion = #6.18(Signed_Inclusion_Proof)
>>>>     > >    Signed_Inclusion_Proof = [
>>>>     > >    protected   :
>>>>     > > @@ -251,6 +251,8 @@
>>>>     > >    + RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof
>>>>     > >  ]
>>>>     > >   +RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content
>>>>     > > +
>>>>     > >  RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content = [
>>>>     > >    tree_size: uint,
>>>>     > >    leaf_index: uint,
>>>>     > > @@ -258,7 +260,7 @@
>>>>     > >  ]
>>>>     > >     -Receipt_For_Consistency = /6.18(Signed_Consistency_Proof)
>>>>     > > +Receipt_For_Consistency = #6.18(Signed_Consistency_Proof)
>>>>     > >    Signed_Consistency_Proof = [
>>>>     > >    protected   :
>>>>     > > @@ -287,6 +289,8 @@
>>>>     > >    + RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof
>>>>     > >  ]
>>>>     > >   +RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>    RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>     > > +
>>>>     > >  RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>>>     > >     tree_size_1: uint,
>>>>     > >     tree_size_2: uint,
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Is https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml <https://
>>>>    www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9942.xml> not the URL to your version?
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Thank you,
>>>>     > > Amaury
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > From: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > Sent: 16 June 2026 02:15
>>>>     > > To: Orie <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > Cc: Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Henk Birkholz
>>>>    <[e-mail]>; Cedric Fournet <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:cose-
>>>>    [e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; cose-
>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Amaury Chamayou
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9942 <draft-ietf-
>>>>    cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18> for your review
>>>>     > >   Hi Orie,
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > When comparing the XML at the link below with our current XML
>>>>    version, we see several differences.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > See the diffs below:
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942githubrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353346461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wacdNpeWTLut8cxAQlHtWeQTaoKTDy6de56P6dfo6ac%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942githubrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353346461%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wacdNpeWTLut8cxAQlHtWeQTaoKTDy6de56P6dfo6ac%3D&reserved=0> (side by side diff)
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942githubdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353383005%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vfP5CDESiNdDpkgW0rEkZv9tx5m2g2gc11vqCgw%2Bn5E%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942githubdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353383005%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vfP5CDESiNdDpkgW0rEkZv9tx5m2g2gc11vqCgw%2Bn5E%3D&reserved=0> (same as above but htmlwdiff style)
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > We spot checked and see some of the differences listed at
>>>>    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-
>>>>    proofs%2Fissues%2F110&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353406904%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bbZ4hy2bnBjpFd4NV5Ccm8ZY6Hk8zMBuMOqkqmaARKU%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs%2Fissues%2F110&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353406904%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bbZ4hy2bnBjpFd4NV5Ccm8ZY6Hk8zMBuMOqkqmaARKU%3D&reserved=0>, so maybe this is just a case of needing to merge in updates, etc.?
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > But, just to clarify, what currently appears at the link you
>>>>    mentioned does not appear to be the same as our current XML version
>>>>    in AUTH48 and we are having trouble tracking which updates are
>>>>    desired and which are being overlooked versus intentionally reverted
>>>>    — because some of the updates seem to be taking place in markdown,
>>>>    xml, and email.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > In order for everyone to be on the same page, we ask that
>>>>    **authors base any further discussion with the RPC off our version
>>>>    that appears in the links below via email** (or if what we have in
>>>>    our links below is not what is desired, authors should reach out
>>>>    over email and let us know if reversions or further changes are
>>>>    necessary).
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Running multiple copies has already led to overlapping issues
>>>>    for this document, so we request that the version we have be
>>>>    considered the starting point / base for any further communication
>>>>    with the RPC.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Thank you for understanding!
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353426822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GJl18lWPvyE765S8fUpTVnKiVt33R8ysVwMnmce8o0I%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353426822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GJl18lWPvyE765S8fUpTVnKiVt33R8ysVwMnmce8o0I%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353445319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EVLEZjU19uQ1XXZakzFIRNzkd9mWKiIdgNfx52wEXSA%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353445319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EVLEZjU19uQ1XXZakzFIRNzkd9mWKiIdgNfx52wEXSA%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353466168%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DqtDtXsnc4mTfnhUkzofdjyvNoAN2Oc4gHydbV4ALgw%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353466168%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DqtDtXsnc4mTfnhUkzofdjyvNoAN2Oc4gHydbV4ALgw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353484364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7lGlRfrgLs9I5W0X%2B16fprCzZFlIpRP8jdQiI6FuVhY%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353484364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7lGlRfrgLs9I5W0X%2B16fprCzZFlIpRP8jdQiI6FuVhY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > >  The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353502697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K8TklpnCgWl%2BWSPoMfemStupYGZKdHnTVdGOe5fKI1I%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353502697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K8TklpnCgWl%2BWSPoMfemStupYGZKdHnTVdGOe5fKI1I%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353520534%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4nRdcrsg7iLH7Z9BUjjJWd8qJwDBT70nYONaRdhA99k%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353520534%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4nRdcrsg7iLH7Z9BUjjJWd8qJwDBT70nYONaRdhA99k%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353538867%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z4XjbeJyJ8DMMxYgCWLdbSa9%2BixfCHL3cLW8gelUf30%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353538867%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z4XjbeJyJ8DMMxYgCWLdbSa9%2BixfCHL3cLW8gelUf30%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353557008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4%2BAwY%2FwLjBMUDtjCa6tOgyjQmXkQiqTFkFBXgMxDRAA%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353557008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4%2BAwY%2FwLjBMUDtjCa6tOgyjQmXkQiqTFkFBXgMxDRAA%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353574899%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rqOGOQFUIaMoymuBdrxrAl0rrUmijSWCio3eWwuj1LY%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353574899%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rqOGOQFUIaMoymuBdrxrAl0rrUmijSWCio3eWwuj1LY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353592534%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hswc0TbfjYPv1hFpRWz%2BJUFbKxVIvlF%2Fq9DXAu5cDyo%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353592534%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hswc0TbfjYPv1hFpRWz%2BJUFbKxVIvlF%2Fq9DXAu5cDyo%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > >  The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353610519%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fjEfxw2zVZ6W1srAScuLUIyhPc0OdWwJjGWoTC%2FTc9c%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353610519%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fjEfxw2zVZ6W1srAScuLUIyhPc0OdWwJjGWoTC%2FTc9c%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > >  The AUTH48 status page for this cluster is available here:
>>>>     > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC557&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353630225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BFT4ArsH14G9M1ooC%2FAgV0xFX1HKqr0Az%2BNvYYYnKTY%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC557&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353630225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BFT4ArsH14G9M1ooC%2FAgV0xFX1HKqr0Az%2BNvYYYnKTY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Thank you.
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > RFC Production Center
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > > On Jun 15, 2026, at 2:15 PM, Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Hi,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > With some help, I believe the XML has been corrected:
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-
>>>>    proofs%2Fblob%2Fdf5113e94e6b6788de0bfb112db63726516b88ab%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353648320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dC%2BAjJVwIV1rr4TNV1KQxqJOmwFMXC%2F1gI1631kBAbI%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs%2Fblob%2Fdf5113e94e6b6788de0bfb112db63726516b88ab%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353648320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dC%2BAjJVwIV1rr4TNV1KQxqJOmwFMXC%2F1gI1631kBAbI%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Regards,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > OS
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:53 PM Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > Hi,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Henk messaged me to say the CDDL is still broken.
>>>>     > > > I have filed an issue to track fixing it: https://
>>>>    nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-
>>>>    proofs%2Fissues%2F108&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353666270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KeUZciynzOv%2FHQrzrxQXNHOjqF%2FM%2FuY0omeLu4nghS0%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs%2Fissues%2F108&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353666270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KeUZciynzOv%2FHQrzrxQXNHOjqF%2FM%2FuY0omeLu4nghS0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > I will attempt to fix this asap.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Apologies for missing this in my last round of fixes.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Regards,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > OS
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:15 AM Megan Ferguson
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]-
>>>>    editor.org>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > All,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Now that the companion document (RFC-to-be 9943) is ready to
>>>>    go, we are hoping to get this document moving as well.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Antoine - any update regarding the XML file (see mail below
>>>>    for further details)?
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Thank you.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > > RFC Production Center
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > > On May 19, 2026, at 11:30 AM, Megan Ferguson
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]-
>>>>    editor.org>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > > Hi Antoine,
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > > Just checking in to see if you have received our queries
>>>>    about the XML that was submitted possibly being in error / the wrong
>>>>    version?  We’d like to make the other updates that have since been
>>>>    requested, but don’t want to cross the files with yours.  If the
>>>>    version you submitted was as intended, please let us know and we can
>>>>    work from that.
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > > Looking forward to hearing back on this issue at your
>>>>    earliest convenience.
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > > Thank you.
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > > Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > > > RFC Production Center
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > >> On May 6, 2026, at 8:00 AM, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Hi Orie,
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Acknowledging your request, I will check this with Amaury
>>>>    against our internal XML changes and get back to you quickly
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Best,
>>>>     > > > >> AntoineFrom: Orie <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 14:39
>>>>     > > > >> To: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
>>>>     > > > >> Cc: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Cedric Fournet
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; rfc-
>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <rfc-
>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; cose-
>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:cose-
>>>>    [e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:cose-
>>>>    [e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Amaury Chamayou
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > > >> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9942 <draft-
>>>>    ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18> for your review
>>>>     > > > >> Hi,
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> I've prepared an updated XML, but now I think we need to
>>>>    make sure Antoine's updates are incorporated before anything else,
>>>>    as it's getting hard to make changes outside of git.
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> @Antoine Delignat-Lavaud This awaits your reply.
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> To help speed this up, I raised: https://
>>>>    nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-
>>>>    proofs%2Fpull%2F107&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353684191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E1Pbyd9XXEVXiKd6GZ3FoDVbEqbiZ1BK%2Bt7pXsRRm%2Bk%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs%2Fpull%2F107&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353684191%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E1Pbyd9XXEVXiKd6GZ3FoDVbEqbiZ1BK%2Bt7pXsRRm%2Bk%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Once confirmed, I can provide a fully revised XML files,
>>>>    and manage future changes in the branch, shuttling the file to the
>>>>    editors as needed.
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Regards,
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> OS
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 2:58 AM Henk Birkholz
>>>>    <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>     > > > >> Hi Megan,
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> we found an editorial issue with the CDDL that should be
>>>>    fixed via the
>>>>     > > > >> following proposal (no wire messages are changed):
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> OLD:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof = bstr .cbor [
>>>>     > > > >>   tree_size: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>   leaf_index: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>   inclusion_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> NEW:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content = [
>>>>     > > > >>   tree_size: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>   leaf_index: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>   inclusion_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Inclusion_Proof_Content
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> In Section 4.3
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> OLD:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof = bstr .cbor [
>>>>     > > > >>    tree_size_1: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>    tree_size_2: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>    consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> NEW:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content = [
>>>>     > > > >>    tree_size_1: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>    tree_size_2: uint,
>>>>     > > > >>    consistency_path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof = bstr .cbor
>>>>     > > > >> RFC9162_SHA256_Consistency_Proof_Content
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> In Section 5.2
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> OLD:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> inclusion-proof = bstr .cbor [
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; tree size at current Merkle Tree root
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; index of leaf in tree
>>>>     > > > >>     leaf-index: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; path from leaf to current Merkle Tree root
>>>>     > > > >>     inclusion-path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> NEW:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> inclusion-proof-content = [
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; tree size at current Merkle Tree root
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; index of leaf in tree
>>>>     > > > >>     leaf-index: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; path from leaf to current Merkle Tree root
>>>>     > > > >>     inclusion-path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> inclusion-proof = bstr .cbor inclusion-proof-content
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> In Section 5.3
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> OLD:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> consistency-proof =  bstr .cbor [
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; older Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size-1: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; newer Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size-2: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; path from older Merkle Tree to newer Merkle Tree
>>>>     > > > >>     consistency-path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> NEW:
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> consistency-proof-content =  [
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; older Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size-1: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; newer Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > >>     tree-size-2: uint
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>     ; path from older Merkle Tree to newer Merkle Tree
>>>>     > > > >>     consistency-path: [ + bstr ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> ]
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> consistency-proof =  bstr .cbor consistency-proof-content
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Viele Grüße,
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> Henk
>>>>     > > > >>
>>>>     > > > >> On 04.05.26 22:27, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>>>>     > > >  Hi Orie,
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Thanks for checking in on this document.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Regarding EDN:
>>>>     > > >  We see the discussion on EDN you pointed to; our preference
>>>>    would be for the authors to update the current XML file with these
>>>>    changes and/or send in snippets for us to copy and paste in Old/New
>>>>    form.  (However, see below for a possible XML issue).
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Regarding any other issues we are waiting on from authors:
>>>>     > > >  We sent a query to Antoine on April 17 asking to confirm
>>>>    that the XML we received from him was the correct version.  We’d
>>>>    like confirmation of the file prior to incorporating it.  NOTE this
>>>>    complicates future changes, so straitening this out sooner than
>>>>    later would be appreciated. The message we sent is below for
>>>>    convenience:
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > Hi Antoine,
>>>>     > > > Thanks for your reply.
>>>>     > > > I want to confirm that the XML attached is the one you were
>>>>    meaning to send?
>>>>     > > > Asking because:
>>>>     > > > -Looks like the most recent changes we applied (sent 14
>>>>    April) were not included (e.g., the alphabetizing of the Terminology
>>>>    section, etc.).
>>>>     > > > -Some other changes from previous versions seem to be
>>>>    reverted (e.g., = /6.18(COSE_Sign1) has been changed back to
>>>>    #6.18(COSE_Sign1).
>>>>     > > > -We don’t see responses or action taken on our questions sent
>>>>    14 April.
>>>>     > > > -There don’t seem to be new changes (most all of the things
>>>>    that appear to have been changed have been touched before).
>>>>     > > > You can see a diff between the most recent version we had
>>>>    sent on 14 April and the file you just sent at:
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942question2-
>>>>    diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353701952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2uEFy7huLc429RzEarfbL4jbj4KZ1z08IC%2FGO3oeUkY%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942question2-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353701952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2uEFy7huLc429RzEarfbL4jbj4KZ1z08IC%2FGO3oeUkY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > A diff between our 2nd-to-last version and the file you just
>>>>    sent is viewable here:
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942question1-
>>>>    diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353720000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UAcIFD0Pu1OMI3nBjPBnWVQn5uRXUD9EcSV7zDyTDOs%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942question1-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353720000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UAcIFD0Pu1OMI3nBjPBnWVQn5uRXUD9EcSV7zDyTDOs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > Please let us know which of the following ways forward would
>>>>    work best:
>>>>     > > > 1) This XML was sent in error, a new one will be submitted by
>>>>    the authors.
>>>>     > > > 2) The mail just got crossed, the authors want the changes in
>>>>    the RPC’s most recent version plus the updates (mostly revisions)
>>>>    that were in the attached XML file (i.e., I can update our files to
>>>>    include the changes highlighted in the second diff above).  Note: if
>>>>    this is the case, can you please also overtly respond to the
>>>>    questions from 14 April so that we can close them out?
>>>>     > > > 3) The authors reject the changes in the RPC’s most recent
>>>>    version and prefer the version in the most recent XML file instead.
>>>>    Please also reply overtly to the questions so we can close them out.
>>>>     > > > Thanks!
>>>>     > > > Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > > RFC Production Center
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Our current files (not including the changes Antoine was
>>>>    requesting) are posted here:
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Please review carefully as we do not make changes once the
>>>>    document is published as an RFC.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353738670%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KlOAGkJVeGbB61Lgl8FzdaW6yQPELnJn7fGJtLqdi9g%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353738670%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KlOAGkJVeGbB61Lgl8FzdaW6yQPELnJn7fGJtLqdi9g%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353756247%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XcAP%2BO0Gdn8WrHM0tlxuvf8NBu2q8zJzgwCaV5ifdf0%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353756247%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XcAP%2BO0Gdn8WrHM0tlxuvf8NBu2q8zJzgwCaV5ifdf0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353775787%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NLyjJuzn3tQvKXqrKbJfCcFykAZX6bYiNnDJLvDgLa4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353775787%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NLyjJuzn3tQvKXqrKbJfCcFykAZX6bYiNnDJLvDgLa4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353794796%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=72O1mG8q%2F7j60ejHA3n7Paw1%2FpiFzg9XZ6mXwvzRo8s%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353794796%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=72O1mG8q%2F7j60ejHA3n7Paw1%2FpiFzg9XZ6mXwvzRo8s%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353813082%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YwqRVM4Wb0G4bECjkseHmdnZMSYj3ThwvUVcWQhvn3M%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353813082%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YwqRVM4Wb0G4bECjkseHmdnZMSYj3ThwvUVcWQhvn3M%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353831307%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fuvbfMc5aVZwxKePOgA5NsegDKRRuwqDAwpGgnsbUEw%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353831307%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fuvbfMc5aVZwxKePOgA5NsegDKRRuwqDAwpGgnsbUEw%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353849797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sftc7j3w9z3AG9TmoPBvsnrCMzsX6W6njgqSrD6klyw%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353849797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sftc7j3w9z3AG9TmoPBvsnrCMzsX6W6njgqSrD6klyw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353867710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lF3ZNE%2BxO2bqC%2B8L3Lm%2F%2BS%2Bp7fXAANK8vMG61D4%2Bkw4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353867710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lF3ZNE%2BxO2bqC%2B8L3Lm%2F%2BS%2Bp7fXAANK8vMG61D4%2Bkw4%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353885802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VOXt2foksdn7XI%2B7X0zThB5449HwDGGySJkgzp6d2Dw%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353885802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VOXt2foksdn7XI%2B7X0zThB5449HwDGGySJkgzp6d2Dw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353903786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ymnwmzejH1iRJhCgwyVc74veIRQ0xghkiS%2FSmz%2Bzc30%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353903786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ymnwmzejH1iRJhCgwyVc74veIRQ0xghkiS%2FSmz%2Bzc30%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353921334%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RIlVlmlhJ8TtRBLyY%2FE0SF11UWZxErUAWDWyRSL%2F8K4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353921334%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RIlVlmlhJ8TtRBLyY%2FE0SF11UWZxErUAWDWyRSL%2F8K4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  The AUTH48 status page for this cluster is available here:
>>>>     > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC557&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353942008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E%2Fln%2B8o4euwpi9w86Ui0%2FZRSI480%2FRfHVwQAVe1PI8Y%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC557&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353942008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E%2Fln%2B8o4euwpi9w86Ui0%2FZRSI480%2FRfHVwQAVe1PI8Y%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Thank you.
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >  Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > >  RFC Production Center
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > > > On Apr 30, 2026, at 3:05 PM, Orie <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > Hi,
>>>>     > > > Just a note, we have been advised to correct some of the EDN,
>>>>    I raised: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-
>>>>    tree-
>>>>    proofs%2Fpull%2F104&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353961122%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s44jRNJa9SSbrZ6uKOk86Qowo%2FkIGBja9d30t41QKCo%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcose-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs%2Fpull%2F104&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353961122%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s44jRNJa9SSbrZ6uKOk86Qowo%2FkIGBja9d30t41QKCo%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > Beyond these EDN corrections, are the editors awaiting more
>>>>    from authors?
>>>>     > > > Regards,
>>>>     > > > OS (just one of the authors)
>>>>     > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:39 PM Cedric Fournet
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     > > > Dear Editors,
>>>>     > > > Many thanks for your help!  Please find our responses below.
>>>>     > > > Best regards, -Cédric
>>>>     > > > ----------------
>>>>     > > > All word choices are surrounded by quotes, to clearly
>>>>    separate them from other words in the same sentence.
>>>>     > > > 1) We had a number of questions related to the consistent use
>>>>    of terminology throughout the cluster:
>>>>     > > > a) We will update to use the form on the right for all
>>>>    instances that occur in prose throughout the cluster unless we hear
>>>>    objection:
>>>>     > > > COSE key type vs. COSE Key Type
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 only use this term in registry titles
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use "COSE Key Type".
>>>>     > > > COSE_Sign1 vs. COSE Sign1 vs. 'COSE_Sign1'
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 use COSE_Sign1 consistently (underscore
>>>>    no quotes)
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use "COSE_Sign1".
>>>>     > > > b) Should the following similar forms be made uniform in
>>>>    prose?  If so, please let us know which is preferred:
>>>>     > > > COSE Header Parameter vs. COSE header parameter (see also
>>>>    other header parameter instances without COSE)
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 use lowercase header parameter and
>>>>    quotes for names (e.g., "alg" header parameter).  All uses of COSE
>>>>    Header Parameter are in titles.
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use "COSE header parameter" outside of titles.
>>>>     > > > COSE Objects vs. COSE signed object
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 have no instances of COSE signed object
>>>>     > > > Could we use "COSE Single Signer Data Object" instead? That
>>>>    is used in RFC9052 (Section  2), and is more accurate.
>>>>     > > > COSE Envelope vs. COSE envelope
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 use Enveloped COSE Structure as a
>>>>    section title and envelope (lowercase) generally, but there are no
>>>>    other instances of COSE Envelope.
>>>>     > > > Could we use "COSE Structure" or "Enveloped COSE Structure"
>>>>    instead? Both terms are used in RFC9052.
>>>>     > > > Algorithm vs. algorithm (when used with verifiable data
>>>>    structure in any of its forms (capped, abbreviated, etc.))
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 use lowercase algorithm throughout
>>>>    (except in titles)
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use algorithm.
>>>>     > > > Append-only vs. append-only vs. append only
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer "append-only", to be consistent with RFC9162
>>>>    and RFC6962.
>>>>     > > > Transparency Service vs. Transparency service vs.     transparency service (see possible related question about TS in scitt)
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use transparency service.
>>>>     > > > Inclusion Proof vs. Inclusion proof vs. "inclusion proof" vs.
>>>>    inclusion proof (see also proof of inclusion, proofs of type
>>>>    "inclusion")
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer "inclusion proof" (without quotes); this is
>>>>    used in RFC9162.
>>>>     > > > Signed Inclusion Proofs vs. signed proofs
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use "signed proofs".
>>>>     > > > Consistency Proof vs. "consistency proof" vs. consistency
>>>>    proof (see also proof of consistency
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer "consistency proof" (without quotes), this is
>>>>    used in RFC9162.
>>>>     > > > Tree Size vs. tree size
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > Yes, please use "tree size".
>>>>     > > > Merkle Tree vs. Merkle tree
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer "Merkle Tree", this is used in RFC9162.
>>>>     > > > Merkle tree root vs. Merkle root tree vs. Merkle root (see
>>>>    also Merkle root tree-size)
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer "Merkle Tree root" where possible.
>>>>     > > > It seems to us that the following replacements in Figure 7,
>>>>    Section 5.3 would make sense:
>>>>     > > > ; older Merkle root tree size vs ; older Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > ; newer Merkle root tree size vs ; newer Merkle Tree size
>>>>     > > > ; path from older Merkle root to newer Merkle root. vs ; path
>>>>    from older Merkle Tree to newer Merkle Tree
>>>>     > > > Receipt vs. receipt
>>>>     > > > Note: RFC 9052 includes a single instance of the term receipt
>>>>    that seems to be used in the general sense.
>>>>     > > > We would prefer to stay with "Receipt" to make it clear the
>>>>    terminology definition applies, except in CBOR/CDDL labels, where
>>>>    the prevailing convention is lowercase (therefore "receipt(s)").
>>>>     > > > Proof Type vs. proof type
>>>>     > > > Note: RFCs 9052/9053 do not use this term.
>>>>     > > > Here too, we would prefer "Proof Type", as defined in the
>>>>    Terminology.
>>>>     > > > c) We see that both documents have slightly different
>>>>    definitions for some of the same terms.  Should these be made more
>>>>    uniform or more consistent?  Or might it be best to define them in
>>>>    one document and point to the definition in the Terminology section
>>>>    of the other document?
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18:
>>>>     > > > Verifiable Data Structure (VDS):  A data structure which
>>>>    supports one
>>>>     > > >     or more Verifiable Data Structure Proof Types.  This property
>>>>     > > >     describes an algorithm used to maintain a verifiable data
>>>>     > > >     structure, for example a binary Merkle tree algorithm.
>>>>     > > > vs.
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22:
>>>>     > > > Verifiable Data Structure:  a data structure which supports
>>>>    one or
>>>>     > > >     more proof types, such as "inclusion proofs" or "consistency
>>>>     > > >     proofs", for Signed Statements as they are Registered to a
>>>>     > > >     Transparency Service.  SCITT supports multiple Verifiable
>>>>    Data
>>>>     > > >     Structures and Receipt formats as defined in
>>>>     > > >     [I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs],
>>>>     > > >     accommodating different Transparency Service implementations.
>>>>     > > > Yes, we would to like to propose that the draft-ietf-cose-
>>>>    merkle-tree-proofs-18 definition remains unchanged, and that the
>>>>    architecture definition is updated as below:
>>>>     > > > draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22:
>>>>     > > > Verifiable Data Structure: A data structure defined in [I-
>>>>    D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs] in which Signed Statements can
>>>>    be inserted as they are Registered by a Transparency Service.
>>>>     > > > and
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18:
>>>>     > > > Receipt:  A COSE object, as defined in [RFC9052], containing the
>>>>     > > >     header parameters necessary to convey VDP for an
>>>>    associated VDS.
>>>>     > > > vs.
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22:
>>>>     > > > Receipt:  a cryptographic proof that a Signed Statement is
>>>>    included
>>>>     > > >     in the Verifiable Data Structure.  See
>>>>     > > >     [I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs] for
>>>>     > > >     implementations.  Receipts are signed proofs of
>>>>    verifiable data-structure properties.  Receipt Profiles implemented by a
>>>>     > > >     Transparency Service MUST support inclusion proofs and
>>>>    MAY support
>>>>     > > >     other proof types, such as consistency proofs.
>>>>     > > > Here we would like to propose a minor typo correction to the
>>>>    draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs definition (adding "one or more"):
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18:
>>>>     > > > Receipt:  A COSE object, as defined in [RFC9052], containing the
>>>>     > > >     header parameters necessary to convey one or more VDP for
>>>>    an associated VDS.
>>>>     > > > And that the draft-ietf-scitt-architecture be updated with a
>>>>    pointer:
>>>>     > > > In draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22:
>>>>     > > > Receipt: A COSE object, as defined in [I-D.draft-ietf-cose-
>>>>    merkle-tree-proofs].
>>>>     > > > 2) C. Fournet and A. Delignat-Lavaud have two different
>>>>    affiliations in the headers:
>>>>     > > > Microsoft Research vs. Microsoft
>>>>     > > > Please use Microsoft.
>>>>     > > > And both have listed different addresses (same address for
>>>>    both authors) in the two docs (see below).  Please let us know which
>>>>    you would like to use for both documents in the cluster.  For example:
>>>>     > > > Cedric Fournet
>>>>     > > >  Microsoft Research
>>>>     > > >  21 Station Road
>>>>     > > >  Cambridge
>>>>     > > >  CB1 2FB
>>>>     > > >  United Kingdom
>>>>     > > >  Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     > > >     vs.
>>>>     > > >     Cedric Fournet
>>>>     > > >  Microsoft
>>>>     > > >  United Kingdom
>>>>     > > >  Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>     Please use the second, shorter address. Please correct Cedric to Cédric.
>>>>     > > > In addition, a reviewer has caught two mistakes.
>>>>     > > > One in the examples of Figures 2 and 6, in which the
>>>>    inclusion path should be an array to match the schema:
>>>>     > > >           / inclusion / -1 : [
>>>>     > > >               <<[
>>>>     > > >                 / size / 6, / leaf / 5,
>>>>     > > >                 / inclusion path /
>>>>     > > >                 h'9352f974...4ffa7ce0',
>>>>     > > >                 h'54806f32...f007ea06'
>>>>     > > >               ]>>
>>>>     > > > Should be:
>>>>     > > >           / inclusion / -1 : [
>>>>     > > >               <<[
>>>>     > > >                 / size / 6, / leaf / 5,
>>>>     > > >                 / inclusion path /
>>>>     > > >                 [ h'9352f974...4ffa7ce0',
>>>>     > > >                   h'54806f32...f007ea06' ]
>>>>     > > >               ]>>
>>>>     > > > In figure 2. And:
>>>>     > > >     / inclusion / -1 : [
>>>>     > > >         <<[
>>>>     > > >           / size / 20, / leaf / 17,
>>>>     > > >           / inclusion path /
>>>>     > > >           h'fc9f050f...221c92cb',
>>>>     > > >           h'bd0136ad...6b28cf21',
>>>>     > > >           h'd68af9d6...93b1632b'
>>>>     > > >         ]>>
>>>>     > > >       ],
>>>>     > > > Should be:
>>>>     > > >     / inclusion / -1 : [
>>>>     > > >         <<[
>>>>     > > >           / size / 20, / leaf / 17,
>>>>     > > >           / inclusion path /
>>>>     > > >           [ h'fc9f050f...221c92cb',
>>>>     > > >             h'bd0136ad...6b28cf21',
>>>>     > > >             h'd68af9d6...93b1632b' ]
>>>>     > > >         ]>>
>>>>     > > >       ],
>>>>     > > > In Figure 6.
>>>>     > > > The other in Figure 2, where the value of 394 (receipts)
>>>>    ought to be an array:
>>>>     > > >   / receipts / 394 : {
>>>>     > > >       << ... >>
>>>>     > > >      }
>>>>     > > > Should be:
>>>>     > > >   / receipts / 394 : {         [ << ... >> ]
>>>>     > > >      }
>>>>     > > > In addition, we are asking for the following mistakes to be
>>>>    fixed:
>>>>     > > > • At the beginning of Section 5.3.1:
>>>>     > > > In a signed consistency proof, the newer Merkle tree root
>>>>    (proven to be consistent with an older Merkle tree root) is an
>>>>    attached payload
>>>>     > > > Should say:
>>>>     > > > In a signed consistency proof, the newer Merkle tree root
>>>>    (proven to be consistent with an older Merkle tree root) is a
>>>>    detached payload
>>>>     > > > As captured in Figure 9, and consistent with Section 4.4.
>>>>     > > > • In Section 4.2
>>>>     > > > This document establishes a registry of verifiable data
>>>>    structure algorithm proofs, see Table 2 for details
>>>>     > > > Should say:
>>>>     > > > This document establishes a registry of verifiable data
>>>>    structure algorithm proofs, see Table 3 for details
>>>>     > > > In addition, there are a couple of inconsistencies across the
>>>>    CDDL snippets:
>>>>     > > > • There is a mix of cose.label/cose.value(s) and cose-label/
>>>>    cose-value(s). Using the latter consistently would be preferable.
>>>>     > > >   • There is a mix of CDDL using comma-terminated lines (eg.
>>>>    Signed_Consistency_Proof) and non comma-terminated (eg.
>>>>    Signed_Inclusion_Proof). They are both valid CDDL, but using the
>>>>    convention adopted in RFC9052 (comma termination) consistently would
>>>>    be preferable.
>>>>     > > > Finally, several EDN snippets (Figures 2, 6 and 9)
>>>>    incorrectly use # comment, when the correct EDN syntax is /
>>>>    comment /. For example:
>>>>     > > > / algorithm / 1 : -7,  # ES256
>>>>     > > > Should be:
>>>>     > > > / algorithm / 1 : -7,  / ES256 /
>>>>     > > > From: [e-mail] <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org> <[e-mail] <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org>>
>>>>     > > > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2026 23:48
>>>>     > > > To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <[e-mail]>; Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Cedric Fournet
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org> <[e-mail] <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <cose-
>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail] <mailto:cose-
>>>>    [e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9942 <draft-ietf-
>>>>    cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18> for your review
>>>>     > > > Authors,
>>>>     > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve
>>>>    (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source
>>>>    file.
>>>>     > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document
>>>>    has been
>>>>     > > >    updated as follows:
>>>>     > > > a) We have flipped the abbreviation and expansion for COSE to
>>>>    match
>>>>     > > > similar uses in past RFC titles.
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > > COSE (CBOR Object Signing and Encryption) Receipts
>>>>     > > > Current:
>>>>     > > > CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Receipts
>>>>     > > > b) We have updated the "short title" (in the running header
>>>>    of the PDF
>>>>     > > > version) as follows:
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > > COSE (CBOR Object Signing and Encryption) Receipts
>>>>     > > > Current:
>>>>     > > > COSE Receipts
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>>>>    appear in
>>>>     > > > the title) for use on https://
>>>>    nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353978886%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9qlNMfDDbwC5ELGkXFc%2F5Pz%2BGZUozf%2F2jixdnCKAo50%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353978886%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9qlNMfDDbwC5ELGkXFc%2F5Pz%2BGZUozf%2F2jixdnCKAo50%3D&reserved=0>. -->
>>>>     > > > 3) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the
>>>>    Terminology
>>>>     > > >    section:
>>>>     > > > a) Would you like the terms to be alphabetized for the ease
>>>>    of the
>>>>     > > > reader?
>>>>     > > > b) The Terminology section of draft-ietf-scitt-architecture has a
>>>>     > > > sentence introducing terms from [STD96] in its Terminology
>>>>    section
>>>>     > > > (see below) that are also used in this document.
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > >  The terms "header", "payload", and "to-be-signed bytes" are
>>>>    defined
>>>>     > > >  in [STD96].
>>>>     > > > Should this sentence (or something similar as "to-be-signed
>>>>    bytes" is
>>>>     > > > not used in this document) be added along with a reference to
>>>>    [STD96]?
>>>>     > > > (Same goes for the sentence in the companion document about the
>>>>     > > > definition of "claim".)
>>>>     > > > If so, please let us know how/where to add as well as if the
>>>>    reference
>>>>     > > > entry would be normative or informative.
>>>>     > > > c) We note that this document uses the following terms that are
>>>>     > > > defined in the Terminology section of
>>>>     > > > draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22.  Should any pointers/
>>>>    citations be
>>>>     > > > added to direct the reader to Section 3 of that document?
>>>>     > > > envelope
>>>>     > > > non-equivocation
>>>>     > > > statement
>>>>     > > > transparency service
>>>>     > > > d) Please see our cluster-wide questions related to discrepancies
>>>>     > > > between the definitions that appear in both documents in this
>>>>    cluster
>>>>     > > > and variances in their appearance (e.g., capitalization).
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 4) <!--[rfced] This sentence doesn't parse.  Please let us
>>>>    know how to
>>>>     > > >    update.
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > > ...such as -1 (crv), -2 (x), -3 (y), -4 (d), RFC9162_SHA256
>>>>    (TBD_1
>>>>     > > > (requested assignment 395) : 1) supports both (-1) inclusion
>>>>    and (-2)
>>>>     > > > consistency proofs.
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Please note that Figure 1 exceeds our
>>>>    character limit in
>>>>     > > >    three places (line 319 is 5 characters over the character
>>>>    limit).
>>>>     > > >    Please review how these lines could be broken to fit
>>>>    within the
>>>>     > > >    69 character limit associated with sourcecode.
>>>>     > > >       -->
>>>>     > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had two questions related to this
>>>>    document's use of the
>>>>     > > >    term "SHA256":
>>>>     > > > a) We note that the EDN provided in Section 4.3 uses RFC9162
>>>>    SHA-256
>>>>     > > > while other uses of this term in prose use RFC9162_SHA256.     Please
>>>>     > > > confirm that this is as intended.
>>>>     > > > b) We see both SHA256 and sha-256 in running text.  Should
>>>>    these be
>>>>     > > > made uniform as SHA256?
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC9162] uses "leaf_index"
>>>>    rather than
>>>>     > > >    "leaf-index".  Please review and let us know if updates
>>>>    should be
>>>>     > > >    made.
>>>>     > > > Current:
>>>>     > > > The term leaf-index is used for alignment with the use
>>>>    established in
>>>>     > > > Section 2.1.3.2 of [RFC9162].
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC9162] uses "Merkle Tree
>>>>    Hash" rather
>>>>     > > >    than "Merkle tree hash".  Please note that there is
>>>>    inconsistency
>>>>     > > >    in this document related to Merkle Tree vs. Merkle tree as
>>>>    well.
>>>>     > > > Current:
>>>>     > > > The payload of an RFC9162_SHA256 inclusion proof signature is the
>>>>     > > > Merkle tree hash as defined in [RFC9162].
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 9) <!--[rfced] This sentence doesn't seem to parse.  Please
>>>>    rephrase.
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > > First the verifier applies the inclusion proof to a possible
>>>>    entry
>>>>     > > > (set member) bytes.
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please review this text for clarity
>>>>    (particularly for a
>>>>     > > >    missing verb after which?).
>>>>     > > > Original:
>>>>     > > > If this process succeeds, the result is a Merkle root, which
>>>>    in the
>>>>     > > > attached as the COSE Sign1 payload.
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 11) <!--[rfced] The following may require clarification:
>>>>     > > > Current:
>>>>     > > > The privacy considerations section of [RFC9162] and [RFC9053]
>>>>    apply to
>>>>     > > > this document.
>>>>     > > > RFCs 9162 and 9053 do not have sections explicitly named "Privacy
>>>>     > > > Considerations". RFC 9053 doesn't appear to contain the term
>>>>    "privacy" at
>>>>     > > > all.  Please review.
>>>>     > > > -->
>>>>     > > > 12) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments
>>>>    related to the
>>>>     > > >    IANA Considerations section:
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > > >>>> a) For clarity, we have updated the IANA Considerations
>>>>    section by
>>>>     > > > >>>> breaking Section 8.2.2 up into subsections for each of
>>>>    the two
>>>>     > > > >>>> registries.  Please review this reorganization as well
>>>>    as any pointers
>>>>     > > > >>>> to it throughout the text to ensure we have correctly
>>>>    maintained your
>>>>     > > > >>>> intent.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> b) Please note that we have updated Tables 2 and 3 to
>>>>    include the
>>>>     > > > >>>> Change Controller column as appears at the corresponding
>>>>    IANA
>>>>     > > > >>>> registries.  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> c) Note: Any updates to Section 2 and/or Tables 1-3 that
>>>>    have been
>>>>     > > > >>>> made or resulting from author replies to our separate
>>>>    terminology or
>>>>     > > > >>>> abbreviation queries that would impact the information
>>>>    actually
>>>>     > > > >>>> registered at
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fcose%2Fcose.xhtml%23verifiable-data-structure-algorithms&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353997430%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UeOwoFxBgflQBbs4cMU7sulXSFFhIASj2B51Xus2KP4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fcose%2Fcose.xhtml%23verifiable-data-structure-algorithms&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695353997430%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UeOwoFxBgflQBbs4cMU7sulXSFFhIASj2B51Xus2KP4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>> will be communicate to IANA by the RPC once AUTH48
>>>>    completes.-->
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> 13)  <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments
>>>>    related to
>>>>     > > > >>>>       abbreviations used throughout the document.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon
>>>>    first use per
>>>>     > > > >>>> Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").  Please
>>>>    review each
>>>>     > > > >>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> b) We would like to update to use an abbreviation
>>>>    (instead of its
>>>>     > > > >>>> expanded form) after first use in accordance with the
>>>>    guidance at
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23exp_abbrev&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354014822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Zadfs0WwjEYceqEhv5p3EnbJbT00juQgXbY4DxvDlBM%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23exp_abbrev&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354014822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Zadfs0WwjEYceqEhv5p3EnbJbT00juQgXbY4DxvDlBM%3D&reserved=0> for the
>>>>     > > > >>>> following abbreviations.  Please let us know any objections.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> VDS
>>>>     > > > >>>> VDP
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> *Note: In the meantime, we have updated all uses in
>>>>    prose to be
>>>>     > > > >>>> capitalized for these two terms.  Please review the use
>>>>    of "verifiable
>>>>     > > > >>>> data structure" (in quotes): may this instance be
>>>>    changed to VDS as
>>>>     > > > >>>> well?
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> **Note: We also see "verifiable data structure algorithm
>>>>    proofs".
>>>>     > > > >>>> Could this be made "VDP algorithms"?
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> c) Things get a bit messy when we look at the expansion
>>>>    of VDP if the
>>>>     > > > >>>> expansion of "P" is plural "proofs".
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> For example, in the following:
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Original:
>>>>     > > > >>>> This document describes how to convey VDS and associated
>>>>    VDP types in
>>>>     > > > >>>> unified COSE envelopes.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> If we were to expand this, we'd get "verifiable data
>>>>    structure proofs
>>>>     > > > >>>> types" (with the double plurals).
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> However, sometimes the -s on proof disappears when this
>>>>    was expanded
>>>>     > > > >>>> in the text.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> For example:
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Original:
>>>>     > > > >>>> ..defining the integers used to identify verifiable data
>>>>    structure
>>>>     > > > >>>> proof types...
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> and
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Original:
>>>>     > > > >>>> A data structure which supports one or more Verifiable
>>>>    Data Structure
>>>>     > > > >>>> Proof Types.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> It's also a bit strange for it to be plural here:
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Original:
>>>>     > > > >>>> The combination of representations of various VDS and
>>>>    VDP can
>>>>     > > > >>>> significantly increase the burden for implementers and
>>>>    create
>>>>     > > > >>>> interoperability challenges for transparency services.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Where we will have to make it "various VDSs and
>>>>    VDP" (the reader will
>>>>     > > > >>>> likely expect VDPs).
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Is it possible to update to use Verifiable Data
>>>>    Structure Proofs
>>>>     > > > >>>> (VDPs)?
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>  -->
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> 14)  <!-- [rfced] See a list below of terms enclosed in
>>>>    <tt> in this
>>>>     > > > >>>>       document.  Some of these terms appear both with
>>>>    and without <tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>>       (alg, receipts, vdp, vds).  Please review to
>>>>    ensure the usage of
>>>>     > > > >>>>       <tt> is correct and consistent.  Let us know if
>>>>    any updates are
>>>>     > > > >>>>       needed.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>alg</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>exp</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>iat</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>leaf-index</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>nbf</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>receipts</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>tree-size</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>vdp</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>> <tt>vds</tt>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> -->
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language"
>>>>    portion of the
>>>>     > > > >>>>      online Style Guide
>>>>     > > > >>>>      <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354032370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=li0%2FE50MVGRnfdHwv4YQI21FZhGoQHYOL%2BEQZd1magQ%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354032370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=li0%2FE50MVGRnfdHwv4YQI21FZhGoQHYOL%2BEQZd1magQ%3D&reserved=0>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>      and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates
>>>>    of this
>>>>     > > > >>>>      nature typically result in more precise language,
>>>>    which is
>>>>     > > > >>>>      helpful for readers.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in
>>>>    particular, but this
>>>>     > > > >>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> -->
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Thank you.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Megan Ferguson
>>>>     > > > >>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Updated 2026/03/06
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> 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://
>>>>    nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354051055%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yawvsg%2BTkOS7FelzJ%2F3cxgS5fM1I9WiwYjIDgO8O4ks%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354051055%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yawvsg%2BTkOS7FelzJ%2F3cxgS5fM1I9WiwYjIDgO8O4ks%3D&reserved=0>).
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> 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://
>>>>    nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-
>>>>    info&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354069166%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WelStLFYNHXS2%2FNsr4n8cYsaTRr%2BtkwBYdnzj1jDevM%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354069166%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WelStLFYNHXS2%2FNsr4n8cYsaTRr%2BtkwBYdnzj1jDevM%3D&reserved=0>).
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> *  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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-
>>>>    vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354088446%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wUFdN1F6wQ4zpvlZz2Cr7MW4Kj5XLDBfh0GVM%2FtB%2FS8%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354088446%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wUFdN1F6wQ4zpvlZz2Cr7MW4Kj5XLDBfh0GVM%2FtB%2FS8%3D&reserved=0>>.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> *  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
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>    * [e-mail] <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org> (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).
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>    * [e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival
>>>>    mailing list
>>>>     > > > >>>>       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an
>>>>    active discussion
>>>>     > > > >>>>       list:
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>      *  More info:
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-
>>>>    announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354106799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TMoIIENmp70XytQ7VnaXbjDwfGuzZx5X1Xu6FNxryOo%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354106799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TMoIIENmp70XytQ7VnaXbjDwfGuzZx5X1Xu6FNxryOo%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>      *  The archive itself:
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354125070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bJNmHnVc5iNCmPowqkLUD%2FBc8ovefYnF8g1ryu8lvgA%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354125070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bJNmHnVc5iNCmPowqkLUD%2FBc8ovefYnF8g1ryu8lvgA%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>      *  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,
>>>>     > > > >>>> [e-mail] <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-
>>>>    editor.org> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354143163%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rJUZ9ctBMjfLjuaw2j2uo1pKfdbTVUaEOeUWujIHqtc%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354143163%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rJUZ9ctBMjfLjuaw2j2uo1pKfdbTVUaEOeUWujIHqtc%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354160882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hMUISKPmb27585DoEUdAYktAkoxmNlhnpmuMWbo3li4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354160882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hMUISKPmb27585DoEUdAYktAkoxmNlhnpmuMWbo3li4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354178413%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v4ICPNfk5AEXm5uyYcrlAeIFl8VfVknmC18BdG1oryM%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354178413%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v4ICPNfk5AEXm5uyYcrlAeIFl8VfVknmC18BdG1oryM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354196189%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K8y3gxcRaFuX5bXVSv%2FbsGMT6hcPh8LLb6VnBIN3Z3g%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354196189%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K8y3gxcRaFuX5bXVSv%2FbsGMT6hcPh8LLb6VnBIN3Z3g%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354213946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e5ty2aq6cb%2BDFtdrXBEYpSZgUWlprDXgX7JeX9fyX8M%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354213946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e5ty2aq6cb%2BDFtdrXBEYpSZgUWlprDXgX7JeX9fyX8M%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354231240%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XGGkidT17gZuWhoSVORKtmdsRAsewNOETBhVvDnS79Q%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354231240%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XGGkidT17gZuWhoSVORKtmdsRAsewNOETBhVvDnS79Q%3D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-
>>>>    xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354250614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MCDE1t7Ov7xDeGGr4sfaoL7%2FckZFGJFaKm7GpEP6swg%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9942-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354250614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MCDE1t7Ov7xDeGGr4sfaoL7%2FckZFGJFaKm7GpEP6swg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Tracking progress
>>>>     > > > >>>> -----------------
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>     > > > >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>>    url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>    editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354268679%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c9NtshPSlLmVYVm3PSTD%2BnPmFvy2S6FWTClqTABh45s%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9942&data=05%7C02%7CAmaury.Chamayou%40microsoft.com%7C3a705f96ad5c4ea3033608decb44c26c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C639171695354268679%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c9NtshPSlLmVYVm3PSTD%2BnPmFvy2S6FWTClqTABh45s%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> RFC Editor
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>     > > > >>>> RFC9942 (draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-18)
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Title            : COSE (CBOR Object Signing and
>>>>    Encryption) Receipts
>>>>     > > > >>>> Author(s)        : O. Steele, H. Birkholz, A. Delignat-
>>>>    Lavaud, C. Fournet
>>>>     > > > >>>> WG Chair(s)      : Ivaylo Petrov, Michael B. Jones
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
>>>>     > > > >>>>
>>>>     > > > >>>
>>>>     > > > >
>>>>     > > >
>>>>     > >
>>>>     >
>>> 
>