Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated "Module Lattice Key Encapsulation
Mechanism" to "Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism" to match
its use in NIST FIPS 203 and draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates (and for
consistency with the Abstract). Please let us know any objections.
Original:
The Module Lattice Key Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) is an
IND-CCA2-secure Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) standardized in
[FIPS203] by the NIST PQC Project [NIST-PQ].
Current:
The Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) is an
IND-CCA2-secure Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) standardized in
[FIPS203] by the NIST PQC Project [NIST-PQ].
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We believe "MK-KEM-512" should be "ML-KEM-512". We
have corrected as follows.
Original:
This document specifies the direct use of ML-KEM in the
KEMRecipientInfo structure using each of the three parameter sets from
[FIPS203], namely MK-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024.
Current:
This document specifies the direct use of ML-KEM
in the KEMRecipientInfo structure using each of the three parameter
sets from [FIPS203], namely ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following sentence since we fully
expanded HKDF. Please let us know any objections.
Original:
Implementations MUST support HKDF [RFC5869] with SHA-256 [FIPS180],
using the id-alg-hkdf-with-sha256 KDF object identifier [RFC8619].
Current:
Implementations MUST support the HMAC-based Key Derivation Function
(HKDF) [RFC5869] with SHA-256 [FIPS180] using the id- alg-hkdf-with-
sha256 KDF object identifier [RFC8619].
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] References
a) FYI: We updated the date for [CSOR] from "20 August 2024" to "13
June 2025" to match the most current date provided at the URL.
Original:
[CSOR] NIST, "Computer Security Objects Register", 20 August
2024, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/computer-security-
objects-register/algorithm-registration>.
Current:
[CSOR] NIST, "Computer Security Objects Register (CSOR)", 13 June
2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/computer-security-
objects-register/algorithm-registration>.
b) FYI: We've updated the date for [NIST-PQ] from "20 December 2016" to
"30 September 2025" to match the most current date provided at the URL.
Original:
[NIST-PQ] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Post-
Quantum Cryptography Project", 20 December 2016,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-
cryptography>.
Current:
[NIST-PQ] NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)", 30 September
2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-
cryptography>.
c) FYI: We've updated the date for [CMVP] from "2016" to "3 September
2025" to match the most current date provided at the URL.
Original:
[CMVP] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Cryptographic Module Validation Program", 2016,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-
validation-program>.
Current:
[CMVP] NIST, "Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP)", 3
September 2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/
cryptographic-module-validation-program>.
d) We note that draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2-09 has been replaced with
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem-03. We have updated the reference
accordingly. Please let us know if this is incorrect.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] The following line exceeds the line limit by 3 characters.
Please review and let us know how this line can be modified.
980 16: OCTET STRING 5C F1 78 6C 57 C7 40 2B 54 FC 93 C3 0A 4A 45 33
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] The following was provided in response to the intake form:
Acknowledgements should maybe mention draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates.
There is an Informative reference to I-D.kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2 which is only
referenced from the Acknowledgements section. That s polite, but if this RFC
will be delayed waiting for the other one, then it can be removed.
Please provide text if you would like to update the Acknowledgements
section. Note that draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates is now in AUTH48 as
RFC-to-be 9935.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork elements to sourcecode per the
guidance given in the document intake form:
"...the two-line code block in section 2.2.1, the identifiers in section 3
and especially the sample data in Appendix C."
A) Please review and let us know if any other artwork elements need to be
marked as sourcecode.
B) Please review the current list of preferred values for sourcecode "type"
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types)
and let us know how/if type should be set. If the list does not contain an
applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, note that it is
acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] We have added expansions for abbreviations throughout the
document and use abbreviated forms for expansions upon first use. Please
let us know any objections.
-->
9) <!-- [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.
In addition, 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.
Possible substitutions for "traditional" (used in past RFCs) include
"commonly used", "typical", "long-established", "conventional", and
"time-honored". -->
Thank you.
Madison Church and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Feb 9, 2026, at 8:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/02/09
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/rfc9936.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9936-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9936
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9936 (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-13)
Title : Use of ML-KEM in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Author(s) : P. Julien, M. Ounsworth, 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]
