Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Should "and/or" be updated to simply "and" or "or" in this sentence for clarity? Original: (In other padding schemes, such as PKCS #1 v1.5 [RFC8017], the input has structure and/or depends on the keying material, and the provable security assurances are not as strong.) Perhaps: (In other padding schemes, such as PKCS #1 v1.5 [RFC8017], the input has structure and depends on the keying material. Additionally, the provable security assurances are not as strong.) Or: (In other padding schemes, such as PKCS #1 v1.5 [RFC8017], the input either has structure or depends on the keying material, and the provable security assurances are not as strong.) --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following reference. We found the following URL: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ansix9442007r2017. We have added this URL to the reference. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. Original: [ANS-X9.44] American National Standards Institute, "Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry - Key Establishment Using Integer Factorization Cryptography", American National Standard X9.44, 2007. Current: [ANS-X9.44] American National Standards Institute, "Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry - Key Establishment Using Integer Factorization Cryptography", ANSI X9.44-2007 (R2017), 2007, <https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ ansix9442007r2017>. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another element? --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terms appear inconsistently throughout the document. If there are no objections, we will use the form on the right. PKCS #1 v1.5 vs. PKCS #1 v1.5 algorithm RSA-KEM vs. RSA-KEM algorithm vs. RSA-KEM Algorithm Key Derivation Function vs. key-derivation function vs. key derivation function (per RFC 9629) --> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added abbreviations to expanded terms upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Because this document obsoletes RFC 5990, please review the one errata report for RFC 5990 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5990) and confirm that it has been addressed or is not relevant in this document. (It seems the latter, as the word "exception" is not in this document.) --> 8) <!-- [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/mc/ar On Jan 22, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/22 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/rfc9690.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9690 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9690 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis-10) Title : Use of the RSA-KEM Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Author(s) : R. Housley, S. Turner 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
