Examples of Protecting Content Using JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
RFC 7520

I would suggest using a simpler word than "progenitor" in 3.2 and 3.4 (unless it's a term of art, but it doesn't seem like it is).

I've already made these comments by email, and discussed them with
Matt.  I'm quite satisfied that they're in hand, and no further response
is needed.

My experience is that any time there is a significant number of
examples, some of them will be wrong.  My experience is also that
readers will find those errors and will delight in filing errata
reports.  The shepherd writeup says that the compact encodings, at
least, have been checked for correctness, and I'm trusting that this
is adequate.  But please have pity on the Sec ADs and their
successors, who will have to deal with the inevitable errata, and
quadruple check things.  And make sure that errors are not introduced
during RFC Editor processing.  Do a more-careful-than-usual check
during AUTH48.

In particular, it is very importantant that the RFC Editor perform no
editing at all on the cleartext payloads.  For example:

   It\xe2\x80\x99s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your
   door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet,
   there\xe2\x80\x99s no knowing where you might be swept off
   to.

If the RFC Editor's editing should double-space the sentences, your
examples based on the published cleartext would then be wrong.
Please make sure the the RFC Editor understands that they must
not alter that text in any way... and then please check that during AUTH48.

-- Appendix A --
Not that it matters terribly, but during AUTH48, you might coordinate
with the RFC Editor to make sure that single spacing (not double, as
now) is used after the periods in "J. R. R. Tolkien".  Kathleen might
put this into an RFC Editor note.

The authors engaged in the discussion with the OPS-DIR reviewer Jouni on the points below. Thanks

Few minor nits & comments:

o IDnits spits out warnings. I recon all of them are of kind that will be corrected by t he RFC Editor -> no worries.

o The document uses example domains "hobbiton.example" and alike. According to RFC2606 & 6761 the example domains are "example.com" etc. These should be corrected UNLESS they cause too much trouble regenerating outputs into examples...

o line 325 "coordiates" should probably be "coordinates".

o I would take acronyms (e.g. "(JWS)") away from the abstract.

ok with the outcome of the opsdir review.

- 3.3, 1st para says private where it should say public

- thanks for addressing the (heroic:-) secdir review [1],
I think in the end you got everything rigth?

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05249.html