Hi Sean and Russ, Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the files as requested. In addition to Sean’s section pointers for changes related to "RSA-KEM", we also corrected an instance that appears in Appendix B.2 to "RSA-KEM algorithm". Let us know if there are any additional concerns or corrections that need to be made.
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9690 Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 22, 2025, at 8:25 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > >> 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
