On May 29, 2026, at 4:47 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] For the "[ISAAC_]" reference, we recommend changing the >>> citation >>> tag since "[ISAAC]" and "[ISAAC_]" may be easily confused. May we update >>> "[ISAAC_]" to "[ISAAC+]" or "[ISAAC-Plus]"? >>> --> >> This question to be answered by Alan and the SEC-ADs. > > [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before proceeding with > any updates for the "[ISAAC_]" reference.
This should be "[ISAAC-Plus]" for clarity. > [rfced] After further review, we have decided to use "sequence number" and > "secret key" in this document for consistency across RFC 5880 and RFC-to-be > 9985 (this excludes instances where the terms are paired with another noun, > e.g., "Sequence Number field"). Please let us know any objections. This is fine. >>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC >>> Meticulous keyed ISAAC >> The forms I see these in are paired to the sha-1 and md-5 forms of the mode. >> We are looking for consistency for those pairings. The capitalization for >> keyed can match the other instances. >>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed >>> [Note: Is the second "Keyed" correct here? There are 4 instances.] >> These instances look like a search and replace issue. I believe the >> intention here is that each of these instances is intended to be "Meticulous >> Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC format". This should be audited by Alan. > > [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before making the updates > as described above for "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed". We have updated all > other terms for consistency. Yes. The 4 instances can be changed to "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC format". Alan DeKok.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
