Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We note that "traditional" is in quotes, but please
consider whether it should be updated for clarity. The term is ambiguous;
"tradition" is a subjective term because it is not the same for everyone.
Original:
It is intended to be secure
against both "traditional" cryptographic attacks, as well as attacks
utilising a quantum computer.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] The following was provided in response to the intake form:
This document and draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates use
the same text for one of the security considerations: "ML-DSA
depends on high quality random numbers...". That paragraph
should be kept the same between both documents.
Should the paragraphs be identical? They do not currently match. Please
review and let us know how you would like to proceed.
Currently in RFC-to-be 9881 <draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates>:
ML-DSA depends on high quality random numbers that are suitable for
use in cryptography. The use of inadequate pseudo-random number
generators (PRNGs) to generate such values can significantly
undermine various security properties. For instance, using an
inadequate PRNG for key generation might allow an attacker to
efficiently recover the private key by trying a small set of
possibilities, rather than brute-force searching the whole keyspace.
The generation of random numbers of a sufficient level of quality for
use in cryptography is difficult; see Section 3.6.1 of [FIPS204] for
some additional information.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] [CSOR] FYI: We have updated the date for this reference
from 20 August 2024 to 13 June 2025 to match the information provided at
the URL.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the text marked <sourcecode> and <artwork>,
please review and let us know if any updates are needed. The following was
provided in response via the intake form:
The draft features an ASN.1 module that is tagged as source code
in the XML. The module has been tested to confirm that it compiles.
The draft also features example encodings in base64/PEM format and
in a parsed representation. These are artefacts produced by an
implementation rather than "source code" per se, so aren't tagged
that way. Regardless, we've tested the examples against an independent
implementation to make sure they work.
Please consider whether some should be marked as "x509" for consistency
with RFC-to-be 9881 <draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates>, as the
authors of RFC 9881 provided the following guidance:
And the PEM examples in the Appendix C.3 can become type “x509”.
RFC-to-be 9881 has not yet been updated.
Note that 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.
-->
5) <!-- [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.
Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Oct 9, 2025, at 4:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/10/09
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
* [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/rfc9882.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9882
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9882 (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07)
Title : Use of the ML-DSA Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS)
Author(s) : B. Salter, A. Raine, D. Van Geest
WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
