On Tuesday, 9 September 2025 02:01:22 CEST, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
wrote:
Alicja,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source
file.
1) <!-- [rfced] This document updates RFCs 7292 and 8018. Please review
the errata reported these RFCs and let us know if you confirm our
opinion that none of them are relevant to the content of this
document.
Links to errata:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7292
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8018
-->
Errata#5808 is actually addressed by this I-D, all the other are about
parts that are untouched by this I-D
2) <!-- [rfced] Although "use of a PKCS #12 specific" appeared
in RFC 9579, may
we update this phrase in one of the following ways to improve clarity?
Original:
Unfortunately, [RFC7292]
mandates the use of a PKCS #12 specific password-based key derivation
function that only allows for change of the underlying message digest
function.
Perhaps:
Unfortunately, [RFC7292]
mandates the use of a specific PKCS #12 password-based key derivation
function that only allows for change of the underlying message digest
function.
Or:
Unfortunately, [RFC7292]
mandates the use of a password-based key derivation
function that is specific PKCS #12 and only allows for
change of the underlying message digest
function.
-->
no, I don't think either actually improves clarity...
the subject is a PKCS #12 specific PBKDF, and that PBKDF only allows for
change of the underlying message digest (i.e. it's the PBKDF that is
limited,
not PKCS #12 that adds additional limitations to that PBKDF)
so the closest one would be:
Unfortunately, [RFC7292]
mandates the use of a password-based key derivation
function that is specific to PKCS #12 and that PBKDF only allows for
change of the underlying message digest
function.
3) <!-- [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.
-->
I think it follows it
Thank you.
Rebecca VanRheenen
RFC Production Center
On Sep 8, 2025, at 4:59 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/09/08
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/rfc9879.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9879
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9879 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc9579bis-06)
Title : Use of Password-Based Message Authentication
Code 1 (PBMAC1) in PKCS #12 Syntax
Author(s) : A. Kario
WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
--
Regards,
Alicja Kario
Principal Quality Engineer, RHEL Crypto team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, Czech Republic
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
