Greetings, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. The ones from RFC 8708 are "digital signature, message content".--> 2) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased to avoid repetition of 'depend'? Original: As a result, there is a need to prepare for a day when cryptosystems such as RSA and DSA that depend on discrete logarithms and factoring cannot be depended upon. Perhaps: As a result, there is a need to prepare for a day when cryptosystems such as RSA and DSA that use discrete logarithms and factoring cannot be depended upon. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, should the four variants be listed in this sentence? (We note they were listed in RFC 8708.) RFC 8554 [HASHSIG] contains one instance of 'variant' but not regarding this concept. Also, perhaps drop the "The" because within this document it's referred to as "the [HASHSIG] specification" or simply "[HASHSIG]". Original: The [HASHSIG] specifies four LM-OTS variants. Perhaps (A): [or, it could be a bulleted list as in RFC 8708] [HASHSIG] specifies four LM-OTS variants (LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W1, LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W2, LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W4, and LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W8). Or (B): [referring to Table 1] [HASHSIG] specifies four LM-OTS variants (as listed in Table 1 of [HASHIG]). --> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, this sentence was updated per mail from the author on 25 September 2024. Original: When this AlgorithmIdentifier appears in the SubjectPublicKeyInfo field of an end entity X.509 certificate [RFC5280], the certificate key usage extension MUST contain at least one of the following: digitalSignature or nonRepudiation. Current: When this AlgorithmIdentifier appears in the SubjectPublicKeyInfo field of an end-entity X.509 certificate [RFC5280], the certificate key usage extension MUST contain at least one of the following: digitalSignature, nonRepudiation, or cRLSign. --> 5) <!--[rfced] Regarding this comment in the ASN.1 (two instances in this document), could it be rephrased for clarity? Yes, this comment is part of the referenced [Err7963]. (Below, two hyphens have been replaced by one in order to include this as a comment in the XML file.) Original: - KEY no ASN.1 wrapping - Perhaps (A): - KEY has no ASN.1 wrapping - Or (B): - No ASN.1 wrapping for KEY - --> 6) <!-- [rfced] [ASN1-B] references the 2015 version of ITU-T Recommendation X.680. This ITU-T Recommendation has been superseded a new version published in February 2021 (https://www.itu.int/rec/t-rec-x.680/en). Would you like to update this reference to use the most current version and add that URL to the reference? --> 7) <!-- [rfced] [ASN1-E] references the 2015 version of ITU-T Recommendation X.690. This ITU-T Recommendation has been superseded by the version in February 2021 (https://www.itu.int/rec/t-rec-x.690/en). Would you like to update this reference to use the most current version and add that URL to the reference? --> 8) <!-- [rfced] For [LM], we found the following URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5432852A/ Would you like to add it to the reference? --> 9) <!--[rfced] May usage of "MTS" be updated as follows? Original: a variant of Merkle Tree Signatures (MTS) Perhaps: a variant of the Merkle Tree Signature (MTS) scheme. Original: Merkle Tree Signatures (MTS) are a method Perhaps: The Merkle Tree Signature (MTS) scheme is a method We find zero usage of "Merkle Tree Signatures (MTS)" (with plural 'Signatures') outside of RFC 8708, and the Wikipedia entry for "Merkle signature scheme" does not use "MTS". [For background, we did ask about this usage during AUTH48 for 8708; the current question is slightly different.] --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element and let us know if any should be marked as sourcecode (or another element) instead. In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any sourcecode element should be set and/or has been set correctly. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 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. RFC Editor/ar On Dec 20, 2024, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2024/12/20 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@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). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9708-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9708 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9708 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03) Title : Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Author(s) : R. Housley WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
