> On Jan 22, 2025, at 4:24 PM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> Dear RFC Editor,
>
>> 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)
>> -->
>
> Please fix "key-derivation function" by dropping the hyphen.
>
> Please fix "RSA-KEM Algorithm" by making the A lower case.
>
> I ask Sean to look at the others. I think that they read fine in the
> document.
0) PKCS #1 1.5
There’s one instance of "the PKCS #1 v1.5 algorithm” that we can change to
"PKCS #1 v1.5” to fix this.
1) RSA-KEM
s1.2: s/for RSA-KEM:/for the RSA-KEM algorithm:
Russ: At the end of s2.2 there’s a reference to the RSA-KEM Key Transport
algorithm from 5990. I think that’s fine because it is different than this
RSA-KEM algorithm.
s2.3: s/accept RSA-KEM with/accept the RSA-KEM algorithm with
s2.3: s/RSA-KEM Key Transport/RSA-KEM Key Transport algorithm
s3: s/With the RSA-KEM,/With the RSA-KEM algorithm,
s3: s/RSA-KEM does not/the RSA-KEM algorithm does not
s3: s/that RSA-KEM can/that the RSA-KEM algorithm can
s3: s/for RSA-KEM Key Transport/for the RSA-KEM Key Transport algorithm
Appendix c: s/RSA-KEM Algorithm/RSA-KEM algorithm
3) KDFs look fine to me
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
