Hi Stavros, Ah, thank you! I can definitely make that change on our end -- no need to push the update.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 27, 2026, at 1:01 PM, Stavros Kousidis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Sarah, dear RFC Editor Team, > There has been a recent fix to the current version (-17) of the draft, and > Paul Wouters suggested not releasing a new version but rather sending you a > direct fix description. You will find the discussion here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Gn1gFSJZgI6NTfCB0t9p6T-cPZ4/ > It concerns the following CURRENT sentence in Section 4.3.1 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17: > "Instead, it is placed in plaintext after the mlkemCipherText and before the > length octet preceding the wrapped session key." > The NEW sentence is: > "Instead, it is prepended to the wrapped session key in plaintext and its > length is included in the preceding length field." > You’ll find a diff in the MR here: > https://github.com/openpgp-pqc/draft-openpgp-pqc/pull/266/changes > I am attaching an updated version (-18) as TXT and XML that we haven’t pushed > to the datatracker. But if instructed, we can push an update easily. > If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. > Best, > Stavros >> Hi Stavros, >> >> Thank you for your reply! >> >> As for the question about idnits flags about the references, we'll take a >> closer look as we process them. I doubt that those suggestions are necessary. >> >> Once I get AD approval for the email address updates, it should be all set. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On Jan 13, 2026, at 4:25 AM, Kousidis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear RFC Editor Team, >>> thank you for adding our document to the queue. >>> We fixed some nits and published version -17. >>> Please see our replies inline below. >>> Best >>> Stavros >>> On 1/6/26 23:22, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC >>>> Editor queue! >>>> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working >>>> with you >>>> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce >>>> processing time >>>> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. >>>> Please confer >>>> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in >>>> a >>>> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline >>>> communication. >>>> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to >>>> this >>>> message. >>>> >>>> As you read through the rest of this email: >>>> >>>> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to >>>> make those >>>> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation >>>> of diffs, >>>> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc >>>> shepherds). >>>> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with >>>> any >>>> applicable rationale/comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear >>>> from you >>>> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a >>>> reply). Even >>>> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates >>>> to the >>>> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document >>>> will start >>>> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our >>>> updates >>>> during AUTH48. >>>> >>>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >>>> [email protected]. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> The RPC Team >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during >>>> Last Call, >>>> please review the current version of the document: >>>> >>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>> sections current? >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>>> document. For example: >>>> >>>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? >>>> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >>>> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >>>> >>> Our documents terminology should match post-quantum hybrid schemes >>> terminology in RFC9794 (as it is stated in Section 1.1.1 of our document). >>> >>>> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., >>>> field names >>>> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double >>>> quotes; >>>> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) >>>> >>> We wrapped functions, parameters, variables, equations, and assignments in >>> single backticks to format them as code. >>> >>>> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >>>> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >>>> hear otherwise at this time: >>>> >>>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >>>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>>> (RFC Style Guide). >>>> >>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>>> >>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>>> >>>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >>>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >>>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >>>> >>>> >>> After fixing some minor nits idnits gives us: >>> ============================================================= >>> idnits 2.17.1 >>> >>> draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17.txt: >>> >>> Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see >>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Miscellaneous warnings: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references >>> to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) >>> >>> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-203' >>> >>> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-204' >>> >>> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-205' >>> >>> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-OPENPGP' >>> >>> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3394 >>> >>> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748 >>> >>> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032 >>> >>> >>> Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--). >>> >>> Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about >>> the items above. >>> >>> =========================================================================================== >>> We listed those references as normative as they contain the algorithmic >>> specifications needed. >>> We would appreciate guidance from the RFC Editor Team if this should be >>> handled differently. >>> >>>> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >>>> are >>>> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >>>> >>> No >>> >>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>>> >>> No >>> >>>> 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>> >>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> As far as we know, yes. >>> >>>> 7) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or >>>> text >>>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>>> kramdown-rfc? >>>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >>>> For more >>>> information about this experiment, see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>>> >>> No >>> >>>> 9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>>> AUTH48 in >>>> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >>>> experiment, >>>> see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >>>> >>> No >>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 6, 2026, at 4:17 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Author(s), >>>>> >>>>> Your document draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-16, which has been approved for >>>>> publication as >>>>> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>>> >>>>> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it >>>>> and have started working on it. >>>>> >>>>> If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or >>>>> if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), >>>>> please send us the file at this time by attaching it >>>>> in your reply to this message and specifying any differences >>>>> between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. >>>>> >>>>> You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. >>>>> Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, >>>>> your document will then move through the queue. The first step that >>>>> we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to >>>>> RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting >>>>> steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. >>>>> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >>>>> (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). >>>>> >>>>> You can check the status of your document at >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>>> >>>>> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >>>>> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed >>>>> our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you >>>>> to perform a final review of the document. >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> The RFC Editor Team >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > <draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-18.txt><draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-18.xml> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
