Russ, 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. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Note that we changed "input key material" to "input keying material" here because OKM is introduced as "output keying material (OKM)" and IKM is defined as "input keying material" under Inputs. Please let us know if this is incorrect. Original: The mitigation uses the HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF) [RFC5869] to derive output keying material (OKM) from input key material (IKM). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: We converted this <artwork> into a <dl> that is followed by <artwork>. Please review and let us know if this is incorrect. Original XML: <artwork><![CDATA[ Inputs: IKM input keying material info DER-encoded AlgoritmIdentifier Output: OKM output keying material (same size as IKM) The output OKM is calculated as follows: OKM_SIZE = len(IKM) /* length in octets */ IF OKM_SIZE > 8160 THEN raise error salt = "The Cryptographic Message Syntax" PRK = HKDF-Extract(salt, IKM) OKM = HKDF-Expand(PRK, info, OKM_SIZE) ]]></artwork> --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Note that we lowercased the following throughout. Please let us know if corrections are needed. Enveloped-data -> enveloped-data (matches RFC 5652) Authenticated-Enveloped-Data -> authenticated-enveloped-data (matches RFC 5083) --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Because the text is quoted from RFC 5652, we marked it as a blockquote and updated it to match RFC 5652 exactly. Note that the HTML and PDF are linked to Section 6.3 of RFC 5652. However, the TXT only says "see Section 6.3". Please let us know if this causes any concern. Original (first sentence included for context): The fourth step of constructing an Enveloped-data is repeated below from Section 6 of [RFC5652]: 4. The content is encrypted with the content-encryption key. Content encryption may require that the content be padded to a multiple of some block size; see Section 6.3 of [RFC5652]. Current: | 4. The content is encrypted with the content-encryption key. | Content encryption may require that the content be padded to a | multiple of some block size; see Section 6.3. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Similar to above, we have changed the following to a blockquote and updated "Section 6.3 of [RFC5652]" to "Section 6.3 of [CMS]". "6.3" currently links to Section 6.3 of RFC 3852 to accurately reflect the intent of RFC 5083. In order to link to RFC 3852, we had to add an informative reference to RFC 3852 and an in-text citation. Therefore, we included a note to highlight that RFC 3852 has been obsoleted. Please review and let us know if you have concerns or have an alternate suggestion. Original (the first sentence is included for context): The fifth step of constructing an Authenticated-Enveloped-Data is repeated below from Section 2 of [RFC5083]: 5. The attributes collected in step 4 are authenticated and the CMS content is authenticated and encrypted with the content- authenticated-encryption key. If the authenticated encryption algorithm requires either the additional authenticated data (AAD) or the content to be padded to a multiple of some block size, then the padding is added as described in Section 6.3 of [RFC5652]. Perhaps: | 5. The attributes collected in step 4 are authenticated and the | CMS content is authenticated and encrypted with the content- | authenticated-encryption key. If the authenticated encryption | algorithm requires either the additional authenticated data | (AAD) or the content to be padded to a multiple of some block | size, then the padding is added as described in Section 6.3 of | [CMS]. Note that [CMS] refers to RFC 3852, which has been obsoleted by RFC 5652, but the text in Section 6.3 was unchanged in RFC 5652. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] "message content plaintext" reads awkwardly to us. Would "plaintext message content" also work? It appears twice in the following text. Original: Mitigation strategies for unwanted message traffic involve analysis of message content plaintext. When recipients accept unsolicited encrypted messages, they become even more vulnerable to unwanted traffic since many mitigation strategies will be unable to access the message content plaintext. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We replaced TBD0 with value 80 in the ASN.1, but we note a disrepancy in the year: Original: id-mod-CMS-CEK-HKDF-SHA256-2024(TBD0) The description in the IANA Considerations section uses 2023: id-mod-CMS-CEK-HKDF-SHA256-2023 Please review and let us know if 2023 or 2024 is correct. In addition, are these slight variations in the ASN.1 correct? pkcs9(9) vs pkcs-9(9) id-smime(16) vs smime(16) Section 3: id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 31 } Appendix A: CMS-CEK-HKDF-SHA256-Module-2024 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) id-smime(16) id-mod(0) id-mod-CMS-CEK-HKDF-SHA256-2024(TBD0) } ... id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 31 } --> 9) <!-- [rfced] The ANS.1 refers to RFC 5911, but it does not mention RFC 5912. Should RFC 5912 be mentioned? Original: This ASN.1 module builds upon the conventions established in [RFC5911] and [RFC5912]. ... FROM AlgorithmInformation-2009 - in [RFC5911] (note: double hyphen reduced to a single above so this can be included in a comment.) --> 10) <!-- [rfced] In B.1 and B.2, we have changed <artwork> to <sourcecode type="test-vectors"> because "test-vectors" are a defined sourcecode type (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types). Please review. --> 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 On Jan 3, 2025, at 6:08 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/03 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/rfc9709.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9709-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9709 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9709 (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-05) Title : Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) using HKDF with SHA-256 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
