All, We have noted Nick’s (Document Shepherd) approval. With this, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Oct 7, 2025, at 8:20 AM, Nick Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I reviewed this and approve the change. > > -Nick > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 11:17 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Nick* and Benoit, > *Nick (Document Shepherd) - This is a friendly reminder to review and approve > of this added sentence at the end of Section 1. > Old: > This document represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research > Group (CFRG) in the IRTF. It is not an IETF product and is not a standard. > Current: > This document represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research > Group (CFRG) in the IRTF. It has been reviewed by two members of the > Crypto Review Panel, as well as by several members of the CFRG. It > is not an IETF product and is not a standard. > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48diff.html Benoit - Thank you > for your reply. Your approval has been noted: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 Once we receive approval from > *Nick, we will move this document forward in the publication process. > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > On Oct 6, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Benoit Viguier <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Alanna, > I also approve. > Kind regards, > Benoit. > On 10/6/25 17:58, Alanna Paloma wrote: > Hi John and GIlles, > We have updated "Original Dialog Identifier (ODI)” to "Object Identifier > (OID)”. See the files below. > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.pdf The relevant diff files have > been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) > Please note that we are awaiting approvals from Benoît, Joan, and Nick > (Document Shepherd) prior to moving this document forward in the publication > process. > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > On Oct 6, 2025, at 4:46 AM, Gilles VAN ASSCHE > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > Thank you for spotting this! > Dear Alanna Paloma, > I think that John is right and that the intended meaning was indeed “OID” for > “object identifier”. Is it still possible to change this? > Sorry for missing it in my review. > Thanks & kind regards, > Gilles > From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Sent: dimanche 5 octobre > 2025 13:12 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9861 > <draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-17> for your review > Hi, > I stumbled upon this AUTH48 version while recommending WebCrypto to add > TurboSHAKE128, TurboSHAKE256, KT128 and KT256. > https://github.com/WICG/webcrypto-modern-algos/issues/31 21 February 2025: > The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. It is typically a > short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g. URI, ODI...). > September 2025: The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. It > is typically a short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g., URI, > Original Dialog Identifier (ODI), etc.). > Original Dialog Identifier (ODI) is a very obscure term from RFC 5502. I am > all for IETF highlighting 3GPP technology, but wasn’t ODI just a spelling > error that should have been OID? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5502.html > New: The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. It is typically > a short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g., URI, Object Identifier > (OID), etc.). > Cheers, > John > On 2025-09-16, 03:17, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > *****IMPORTANT***** > Updated 2025/09/15 > 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 > * [email protected] (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). > * [email protected], 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, > [email protected] 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/rfc9861.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.txt > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-xmldiff1.html > Tracking progress > ----------------- > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 > Please let us know if you have any questions. > Thank you for your cooperation, > RFC Editor > -------------------------------------- > RFC9861 (draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-17) > Title : KangarooTwelve and TurboSHAKE > Author(s) : B. Viguier, D. Wong, Ed., G. Assche, Ed., Q. Dang, Ed., J. > Daemen, Ed. WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : > -- > Kind regards, > Benoît Viguier > PhD — Cryptographer | Software Engineer > Cryptography & Formal Methods > ABN AMRO | Secure Coding > Groenelaan 2, 1186 AA Amstelveen | Nederlands | www.viguier.nl -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
