Hi all, I concur with what Flo's and Michael's comments on all points (for brevity, I will skip repeating them).
Thank you for your detailed review of the draft! Britta On 5/30/25, 7:34 AM, "Michael P1" <michael...@ncsc.gov.uk <mailto:michael...@ncsc.gov.uk>> wrote: NPS WARNING: *external sender* verify before acting. Hi All, Thank you to RFC Editors and to Flo for the reviews. I have attached an XML file which updates Flo's version with a single typo that I found but no other changes. Specifically, I changed "genearl solution" to "general solution" in the introduction in response to Editor comment 2. For my response to the RFC Editor Comments: 1. Agree with list added by Flo and words included in title. 2. Agree with Flo's suggested text on this (with typo fixed as above) 3. Agree with the new text suggested. 4. Thank you for the updated reference. 5a. Agree that the word security is not needed. The original suggestions of references from RFC9771 used references specific to the topic in that RFC, namely AEAD algorithms. I prefer the reference suggested by Flo, which includes more general definitions. 5b. Agree with changes here. 6. I am happy with style changes. Please do make this edit. 7. I agree with my coauthor on this. Traditional has been used widely to refer to this mathematical concept, both in academia and within the IETF. Multiple documents within IETF use this draft as a reference, so changing a major definition at this stage would undermine that work and create confusion that this document seeks to prevent. The word "traditional" did get significant discussion within the Working Group, both in meetings and on list, and there was consensus that this was the correct choice. As per the document shepherd write-up, there was agreement to stick with commonly-used terms and to list possible synonyms in the draft and "traditional" was one of the words that this refers to. This discussion is captured in the introduction and in the definitions themselves. Thanks again, I confirm I have reviewed the updated text of the document, and following removal of strong element, I am content to publish. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Flo D <fl...@ncsc.gov.uk <mailto:fl...@ncsc.gov.uk>> Sent: 30 May 2025 13:24 To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Michael P1 <michael...@ncsc.gov.uk <mailto:michael...@ncsc.gov.uk>>; britta.h...@nps.edu <mailto:britta.h...@nps.edu> Cc: pquip-...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-...@ietf.org>; pquip-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-cha...@ietf.org>; paul.hoff...@icann.org <mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>; paul.wout...@aiven.io <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9794 <draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-06> for your review Hello, Thank you very much for the time put into preparing this draft for publication. I am attaching an updating XML file with some changes. This is my first time taking part in the AUTH48 process so apologies for any mistakes in engaging. In response to the RFC Editor Comments: 1. Done 2. I have updated this in the new XML document to a preferred version, I hope this is clearer. 3. This is fine, I've updated this. 4. This is fine. 5a. The word security is not needed in the bracketed text, I have removed it. I've also added a reference for IND-CPA and IND-CPA security. 5b. These expansions are fine. 6. I am happy for you to remove the strong element. I have not updated this as I'm not an XML expert and I didn't want to mess up the formatting. 7. I believe that the draft conforms to the inclusive language guidance. As it is a terminology document we have tried to use plain language as much as possible, while also ensuring that the nuances of the different terms are captured. We do not believe that the word "traditional" here carries any value judgement, and it is defined in the document to ensure that this intention is clear. In addition, the use of the word "traditional" to describe this mathematical concept is now well established and changing it in this document would lead to confusion and significantly reduce the effectiveness of the document. Other than the changes in the XML document and the removal of the strong element I am happy with the content, but I will appreciate the checks from my co-authors as well. Flo ________________________________________ From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 01:42 To: Flo D <fl...@ncsc.gov.uk <mailto:fl...@ncsc.gov.uk>>; Michael P1 <michael...@ncsc.gov.uk <mailto:michael...@ncsc.gov.uk>>; britta.h...@nps.edu <mailto:britta.h...@nps.edu> <britta.h...@nps.edu <mailto:britta.h...@nps.edu>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>; pquip-...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-...@ietf.org> <pquip-...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-...@ietf.org>>; pquip-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-cha...@ietf.org> <pquip-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:pquip-cha...@ietf.org>>; paul.hoff...@icann.org <mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org> <paul.hoff...@icann.org <mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>>; paul.wout...@aiven.io <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io> <paul.wout...@aiven.io <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9794 <draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-06> for your review Authors, 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 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for clarity? Original: There may be a requirement for protocols that use both algorithm types, for example during the transition from traditional to post- quantum algorithms or as a general solution, to mitigate risks. Perhaps: To mitigate risks, there may be a requirement for protocols that use both algorithm types (for example, during the transition from traditional to post-quantum algorithms or as a general solution). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust the text below as follows to make the verbs "reduce" and "defining" parallel? Original: Additionally, this document aims to reduce misunderstanding about use of the word "hybrid" as well as defining a shared language for different types of post-quantum and traditional hybrid constructions. Perhaps: Additionally, this document aims to reduce misunderstandings about the use of the word "hybrid" and to define a shared language for different types of post-quantum and traditional hybrid constructions. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, this reference has been edited to show the most recent date it was updated (31 January 2025). Please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise. Original: [NIST_PQC_FAQ] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "Post-Quantum Cryptography FAQs", 5 July 2022, <https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/ <https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/> faqs>. Current: [NIST_PQC_FAQ] NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) FAQs", 31 January 2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum- <https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-> cryptography/faqs>. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations: a) Regarding IND-CPA and IND-CCA in Section 2: Current: The standard security property for a PKE scheme is indistinguishability under chosen-plaintext attack (IND-CPA). IND-CPA security is not sufficient for secure communication in the presence of an active attacker. Therefore, in general, PKE schemes are not appropriate for use on the Internet, and KEMs, which provide indistiguishability under chosen-ciphertext attack (IND-CCA security), are required. - Is the word 'security' needed in 'IND-CCA security'? - We note that RFC 9771 includes references for IND-CCA and IND-CCA2. Would you like to add references to this document, or will this be sufficiently clear to the reader? (See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9771#section-4.2.1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9771#section-4.2.1>) b) FYI, we added expansions for abbreviations upon first use for the items below. Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) (per FIPS 203) Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) --> 6) <!-- [rfced] For readability we have formatted the lists in this document with a line break between each term and its definition. We suggest removing the <strong> element (which yields bold font in the HTML and PDF, and yields asterisks in the TXT); please let us know if removing <strong> is acceptable. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> <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. In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated throughout this document for clarity. While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1;> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/kf/ar On May 29, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/29 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/ <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 <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> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc> * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <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 <mailto: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/rfc9794.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.xml> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.html> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.pdf <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.pdf> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794.txt> Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-diff.html> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-rfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-rfcdiff.html> (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-xmldiff1.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9794-xmldiff1.html> Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9794 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9794> Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9794 (draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-06) Title : Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes Author(s) : F. Driscoll, M. Parsons, B. Hale WG Chair(s) : Sofia Celi, Paul E. Hoffman 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
