Hello,
I approve from my side.
Thanks,
Stefan
Daniel Van Geest <daniel.vange...@cryptonext-security.com> hat am 16.06.2025 12:12 CEST geschrieben:RFC Editor,
Attached is an updated xml with either approval for you to make your suggested changes, or our own suggestions based on your comments.
Our comments are marked in the XML as follows:
<!-- [authors] -->
Coauthors, please review and indicate approval.
I approve the proposed changes.
Regards,
Daniel Van Geest
On 2025-06-09 11:55 p.m., rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: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. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the abstract for clarity. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. Original: This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for the stateful hash-based signature (HBS) schemes Hierarchical Signature System (HSS), eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS), and XMSS^MT, a multi-tree variant of XMSS. This specification applies to the Internet X.509 Public Key infrastructure (PKI) when those digital signatures are used in Internet X.509 certificates and certificate revocation lists. Perhaps: This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for the following stateful Hash-Based Signature (HBS) schemes: Hierarchical Signature System (HSS), eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS), and XMSS^MT (a multi-tree variant of XMSS). When those digital signatures are used in Internet X.509 certificates and certificate revocation lists, this specification applies to the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we updated instances of MT in XMSS^MT to appear as superscript to match how it appears in [SP800208]. Please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise. Note that the text file will continue to display XMSS^MT, but the HTML and PDF will display MT in superscript. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review some questions regarding the following text: a) For ease of the reader, may we reformat this text as follows? Original: Usual backup and restore strategies when using a stateless signature scheme (e.g. SLH-DSA) are to duplicate private keying material and to operate redundant signing devices or to store and safeguard a copy of the private keying material such that it can be used to set up a new signing device in case of technical difficulties. Perhaps: Usual backup and restore strategies when using a stateless signature scheme (e.g., SLH-DSA) are to: * duplicate private keying material and operate redundant signing devices, or * store and safeguard a copy of the private keying material such that it can be used to set up a new signing device in case of technical difficulties. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] References: The original URL for the reference [CNSA2.0] returns a 404 error. We found the following archived URL for this page from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220908002358/https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/07/2003071834/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS_.PDF Is there a better URL, or may we replace the current URL with this archived link? This URL has an archive date of 8 September 2022 (the original date for this reference was 7 September 2025). --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgements: How may we adjust to make more clear the relationship between these various documents (as in, which documents are meant to be similar to each other)? Original: This document uses a lot of text from similar documents [SP800208], ([RFC3279] and [RFC8410]) as well as [I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis]. Thanks go to the authors of those documents. "Copying always makes things easier and less error prone" - [RFC8411]. Perhaps: This document uses a lot of text from similar documents, including: [SP800208], [RFC3279] and [RFC8410], as well as [RFC9708]. Thanks goes to the authors of those documents. "Copying always makes things easier and less error prone" [RFC8411]. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology and Abbreviations: a) We note that "object identifier" appears a few times after the abbreviation "OID" is introduced. For consistency throughout the document, may we abbreviate all instances of "object identifier" to "OID" after first expansion? b) We note different uses of the following term. For clarity, may we lowercase "certificate authorities" so that it does not appear to reference the abbreviation "CA"? Certification Authority (CA) certificates Certificate Authorities c) FYI - We expanded the following abbreviation upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review carefully to ensure correctness: Internet of Things (IoT) --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We have changed all <artwork> elements in this document to <sourcecode>. Please review to confirm this is correct. In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any <sourcecode> element should be set and/or has been set correctly. Currently, some are set to asn.1 and some are set to x509. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 9) <!-- [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). --> 10) <!-- [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 On Jun 9, 2025, at 3:47 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/06/09 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/rfc9802.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9802-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9802 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9802 (draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-13) Title : Use of the HSS and XMSS Hash-Based Signature Algorithms in Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Author(s) : D. Geest, K. Bashiri, S. Fluhrer, S. Gazdag, S. Kousidis 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
