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 see the following similar sentences repeated throughout
the document. Please review and let us know if these should be
made uniform.
Original:
SLH-DSA is a stateless hash-based signature scheme. (Abstract)
SLH-DSA is a stateless hash-based signature algorithm. (Intro)
SLH-DSA is a hash-based signature scheme. (Section 2)
SLH-DSA is a stateless hash-based signature algorithm. (Section 2)
-->
3) <!--[rfced] Might we rephrase to avoid the repeated "using" in this
sentence?
Original:
CMS values are generated using ASN.1 [X680], using the Basic Encoding
Rules (BER) and the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [X690].
Perhaps:
CMS values are generated with ASN.1 [X680] using the Basic Encoding
Rules (BER) and the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [X690].
-->
4) <!--[rfced] As WOTS+ includes "one-time signature" in its expansion,
would this update work?
Original:
The FORS tree roots are signed by a WOTS+ one-time signature private
key.
Perhaps:
The FORS tree roots are signed by a WOTS+ private key.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Please review our updates to this sentence to reduce
redundancy to confirm we have maintained your intended meaning.
Original:
A SLH-DSA signature is verified by verifying the FORS signature, the
WOTS+ signatures and the path to the root of each subtree.
Current:
An SLH-DSA signature is verified using the FORS signature, the WOTS+
signatures, and the path to the root of each subtree.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] There may be text missing in this sentence. If our
suggested text does not convey your intended meaning, please let
us know how we may rephrase.
Original:
Although its security decreases, FORS which is used at the bottom of
the SLH-DSA hypertree does not collapse if the same private key used
to sign two or more different messages like in stateful hash-based
signature schemes.
Perhaps:
Although its security decreases, FORS, which is used at the bottom of
the SLH-DSA hypertree, does not collapse if the same private key used
to sign two or more different messages is used (as is the case in
stateful hash-based signature schemes).
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have used the <sup> element for superscript in
this document. Please review and let us know any objections.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] We note that "SHA2" does not appear in [FIPS180]. Please
review and confirm this citation:
Original:
The AlgorithmIdentifier for a SLH-DSA public key MUST use one of the
twelve id-slh-dsa object identifiers listed below, based on the
security level used to generate the SLH-DSA hypertree, the small or
fast version of the algorithm, and the use of SHA2 [FIPS180] or SHAKE
[FIPS202].
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon
first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure
correctness.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/06/27
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/rfc9814.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9814-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9814
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9814 (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sphincs-plus-19)
Title : Use of the SLH-DSA Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS)
Author(s) : R. Housley, S. Fluhrer, P. Kampanakis, B. Westerbaan
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
