Hi Authors,
Thank you for your thorough replies! We have updated the document accordingly.
Please see below for further followup questions/comments.
>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Does the following text refer to Appendix B of this
>> document or
>> to an appendix in [JKX18]? Please review.
>>
>> Original:
>> * [JKX18] specified DH-OPRF (see Appendix B) to instantiate the OPRF
>> functionality in the protocol.
>> -->
>>
>
> It refers to appendix B of [JKX18].
1) Thank you for the clarification! May we rephrase this sentence to make this
more clear?
Perhaps:
* Appendix B of [JKX18] specified DH-OPRF to instantiate the OPRF
functionality in the protocol.
>> 15) <!-- [rfced] References
>>
>> b) It appears that [JKX18Full] and [JKX16] are different versions of the same
>> paper. There are instances in the text where it seems like the text is
>> referring to info from [JKX18Full] but cited [JKX16]. Would it be simpler if
>> only the full version of the paper [JKX18Full] is referenced?
>
> Yes, let’s replace JKX18 with JKX18Full throughout the specification.
2) We have updated the document to reflect this change and removed the original
[JKX18] reference since it is no longer cited in the document. Regarding the
citation tag "JKX18Full", would you like to replace it with "JKX18"? Or should
it be left as is?
>> 17) <!-- [rfced] In the HTML and PDF outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is
>> output in
>> fixed-width font. In the TXT output, there are no changes.
>>
>> We've included a list of terms enclosed in <tt> in this document. Some of
>> these terms appear both with and without <tt> tags. Please review to ensure
>> the usage of <tt> is correct and consistent and let us know if the output is
>> acceptable or if any updates are needed.
>>
>> <tt>0x00</tt>
>> <tt>a</tt>
>> <tt>AuthClientFinalize</tt>
>> <tt>AuthClientStart</tt>
>> <tt>AuthRequest</tt>
>> <tt>AuthResponse</tt>
>> <tt>AuthServerFinalize</tt>
>> <tt>AuthServerRespond</tt>
>> <tt>auth_tag</tt>
>> <tt>blinded_element</tt>
>> <tt>blind</tt>
>> <tt>Blind()</tt>
>> <tt>b</tt>
>> <tt>buf</tt>
>> <tt>CleartextCredentials</tt>
>> <tt>ClientAkeState</tt>
>> <tt>ClientAuthenticationError</tt>
>> <tt>client_identity</tt>
>> <tt>client_private_key</tt>
>> <tt>client_public_key</tt>
>> <tt>client_state</tt>
>> <tt>ClientState</tt>
>> <tt>concat(0x01, 0x0203, 0x040506) = 0x010203040506</tt>
>> <tt>context</tt>
>> <tt>CreateCredentialRequest</tt>
>> <tt>CreateCredentialResponse</tt>
>> <tt>CreateRegistrationRequest</tt>
>> <tt>CreateRegistrationResponse</tt>
>> <tt>credential_identifier</tt>
>> <tt>CredentialRequest</tt>
>> <tt>CredentialResponse</tt>
>> <tt>DeriveDiffieHellmanKeyPair()</tt>
>> <tt>DeriveDiffieHellmanKeyPair</tt>
>> <tt>DeriveKeyPairError</tt>
>> <tt>element</tt>
>> <tt>envelope_nonce</tt>
>> <tt>EnvelopeRecoveryError</tt>
>> <tt>Envelope</tt>
>> <tt>evaluated_element</tt>
>> <tt>export_key</tt>
>> <tt>Extract()</tt>
>> <tt>FinalizeRegistrationRequest</tt>
>> <tt>GenerateKE1</tt>
>> <tt>GenerateKE2</tt>
>> <tt>GenerateKE3</tt>
>> <tt>Hash()</tt>
>> <tt>ikm</tt>
>> <tt>info</tt>
>> <tt>InvalidInputError</tt>
>> <tt>KE1</tt>
>> <tt>KE2</tt>
>> <tt>KE3</tt>
>> <tt>key</tt>
>> <tt>Km2</tt>
>> <tt>k</tt>
>> <tt>Label</tt>
>> <tt>L</tt>
>> <tt>MAC()</tt>
>> <tt>masked_response</tt>
>> <tt>masking_key</tt>
>> <tt>modeOPRF</tt>
>> <tt>msg</tt>
>> <tt>Nh</tt>
>> <tt>nil</tt>
>> <tt>Nm</tt>
>> <tt>Nn + Nm</tt>
>> <tt>Nn</tt>
>> <tt>Npk</tt>
>> <tt>Nseed = 32</tt>
>> <tt>Nseed</tt>
>> <tt>Nsk</tt>
>> <tt>n</tt>
>> <tt>Nx</tt>
>> <tt>oprf_output</tt>
>> <tt>oprf_seed</tt>
>> <tt>pk</tt>
>> <tt>preamble</tt>
>> <tt>prk</tt>
>> <tt>randomized_password</tt>
>> <tt>record.client_public_key</tt>
>> <tt>record.envelope</tt>
>> <tt>record.masking_key</tt>
>> <tt>record</tt>
>> <tt>RecoverCredentials</tt>
>> <tt>Recover</tt>
>> <tt>RegistrationRecord</tt>
>> <tt>RegistrationRequest</tt>
>> <tt>RegistrationResponse</tt>
>> <tt>salt</tt>
>> <tt>seed</tt>
>> <tt>ServerAkeState</tt>
>> <tt>ServerFinish</tt>
>> <tt>server_identity</tt>
>> <tt>server_private_key</tt>
>> <tt>server_public_key</tt>
>> <tt>server_state</tt>
>> <tt>ServerState</tt>
>> <tt>session_key</tt>
>> <tt>sk</tt>
>> <tt>Store</tt>
>> <tt>s</tt>
>> <tt>true</tt>
>> <tt>u</tt>
>> -->
>
> For any term that uses fixed-width inconsistently, please make it use
> fixed-width consistently (by always making it fixed-width). That is, if a
> term x appears both with and without fixed-width font, please make it always
> appear with fixed-width font.
3) We have updated inconsistent terms above to fixed-width font as requested.
Please review the PDF and HTML outputs and let us know if the terms appear as
desired or if there are any additional changes/corrections needed regarding
fixed-width font.
>> 19) <!-- [rfced] We note that there is inconsistent use of symbolic vs.
>> numeric
>> citation tags for RFCs (e.g., [PBKDF2] for RFC 8018 vs. [RFC5869] for RFC
>> 5869). Should this remain as is or be made consistent throughout the
>> document?
>> -->
>
> Please make things consistent.
4) We have updated RFCs to use numeric tags consistently.
>> 20) <!-- [rfced] The following lines extend beyond the margin. How may we
>> break
>> these lines so they fit within the 69-character limit?
>>
>> Section 4 (3 characters beyond the margin):
>> - server_public_key, the encoded server public key for the AKE protocol.
>> - server_public_key, the encoded server public key for the AKE protocol.
>
> “for the AKE protocol” can be spilled over onto the following line.
>
>>
>> Section 6.2.2 (2 characters beyond the margin):
>> def GenerateKE2(server_identity, server_private_key, server_public_key,
>
> Please move parameters to the following line such that they are within the
> character limit. For example, for this one, it should be:
>
> def GenerateKE2(server_identity, server_private_key,
> server_public_key, record, credential_identifier,
> oprf_seed, ke1, client_identity):
>
>>
>> Section 6.2.3 (1 character beyond the margin):
>> AuthClientFinalize(cleartext_credentials, client_private_key, ke2)
>
> This can be:
>
> (ke3, session_key) =
> AuthClientFinalize(cleartext_credentials,
> client_private_key, ke2)
>
>>
>> Section 6.4.2.1 (3 characters beyond the margin):
>> def Preamble(client_identity, ke1, server_identity, credential_response,
>
> Please move parameters as done above for GenerateKE2.
>
>>
>> Section 6.4.3 (2 characters beyond the margin):
>> def AuthClientFinalize(cleartext_credentials, client_private_key, ke2):
>
> Please move parameters as done above for GenerateKE2.
5) Thank you for the guidance! Please review the updated lines in each output
and let us know if they appear as desired.
>> 22) <!-- [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.
>>
>> In particular, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated 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>
>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
>> -->
>
> Use of “traditional” is correct, but could be replaced with “typical.”
6) We have updated to "correct" per Hugo’s response on 6/30. Please let us know
any objections.
The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.xml
The updated diff files have been posted here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-diff.html (comprehensive updates)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-auth48diff.html (updates made
during AUTH48)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
For the AUTH48 status page, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9807.
Thank you!
RFC Editor/mc
> Best,
> Chris
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor/mc/ar
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2025/06/26
>>
>> 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/rfc9807.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9807-xmldiff1.html
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9807
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9807 (draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque-18)
>>
>> Title : The OPAQUE Augmented Password-Authenticated Key Exchange
>> (aPAKE) Protocol
>> Author(s) : D. Bourdrez, H. Krawczyk, K. Lewi, C. A. Wood
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
