Hi Andrey, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771). We have received all needed approvals and now consider AUTH48 complete. We will move the document forward in the publication process at this time.
Thank you for your attention during the AUTH48 process! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On May 2, 2025, at 2:59 AM, Andrey Bozhko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, all, > > I've reviewed the current version and approve the document as it stands. > Thank you very much! > > Best regards, > Andrey > > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 6:59 PM Rebecca VanRheenen > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771). > > Once we receive approval from Andrey, we will move this document forward in > the publication process. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > > > On May 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Rebecca, > > > > On 30/04/2025 06:11, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote: > >> Hi Andrey, > >> > >> Thank you for addressing all of our questions and updating the xml file! > >> Note that we also added expansions for RAE, CCA, and CPA in the xml file. > >> > >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > >> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Let us know if you have > >> any further updates or if you approve the document in its current form. > >> > >> *Alexey, as Document Shepherd, please review the following changes (all of > >> which we consider either technical or “above editorial") and let us know > >> if you approve. These changes are best viewed here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-auth48diff.html. > >> > >> - Section 3: change from “MAY to “may" (author explanation: 'lowercased > >> "may" since how particular AEADs should be defined is out of scope for > >> this document’) > > I can be convinced either way on this once. But I think the change is fine. > >> - Section 4.3.7: addition of "[IIM25]” under Further reading (author > >> explanation: “recent reference”) > >> - Section 4.3.10: addition of "GCM [IIM25]” under Examples and addition of > >> "[IIM25]” under Further reading (author explanation: “Added the example > >> based on a resent result”) > >> - Section 4.4.2: removal of "OCB [RFC7253]” from Examples > > > > Yes, happy with these. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Alexey > > > >> > >> > >> — FILES (please refresh) — > >> > >> Updated XML file: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.xml > >> > >> Updated output files: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.html > >> > >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-auth48diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > >> side) > >> > >> Diff files showing all changes: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771 > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> RFC Editor/rv > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 28, 2025, at 6:16 AM, Andrey Bozhko <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Rebecca, all, > >>> > >>> Thanks to the editors for such a thorough review! > >>> > >>> I've provided my replies in the attached .xml file. Please note that I > >>> made a few minor technical changes: I removed an example from Section > >>> 4.4.2 and added a recent paper as further reading in Sections 4.3.7 and > >>> 4.3.9. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Andrey > >>> > >>> P.S. Apologies for the delayed reply; it seems I lost the initial email > >>> somewhere... > >>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 8:16 PM Rebecca VanRheenen > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi Andrey, > >>> > >>> This is a friendly reminder that this document awaits your attention. > >>> Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement > >>> below. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 > >>> review process. > >>> > >>> AUTH48 status page of this document: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771 > >>> > >>> AUTH48 FAQs: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48 > >>> > >>> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> RFC Editor/rv > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Apr 17, 2025, at 3:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Author(s), > >>>> > >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been > >>>> updated as > >>>> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 > >>>> ("RFC > >>>> Style Guide"). Please review. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Properties of AEAD Algorithms > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> Properties of Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) > >>>> Algorithms > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 > >>>> of RFC > >>>> 5743 have been adhered to in this document. See > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5743.html#section-2.1. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "it" refers to here? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> We note that specifications of AEAD algorithms that use > >>>> authentication tags to ensure integrity MAY define it as an > >>>> independent output of the encryption operation and as an independent > >>>> input of the decryption operation. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "IND-CTXT" is correct here. We ask > >>>> because we > >>>> do not see "IND-CTXT" in [BN2000], but we do see "INT-CTXT". > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Security notion: IND-CTXT [BN2000] (or AUTH [R02]). > >>>> > >>>> Security notion: IND-CPA and IND-CTXT [BN2000][R02] (or equivalently > >>>> IND-CCA3 [S04]). > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] May we remove "It holds that"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> It holds that for any AEAD algorithm security degrades no worse > >>>> than linearly with an increase in the number of users [BT16]. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> For any AEAD algorithm, security degrades no worse > >>>> than linearly with an increase in the number of users [BT16]. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Should "Hide-Nonce (HN)" be updated to "Nonce-Hiding" > >>>> per the > >>>> title of Section 4.3.6? We are unable to access [BNT19] to check for > >>>> guidance there. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> 4.3.6. Nonce-Hiding > >>>> ... > >>>> Examples: Hide-Nonce (HN) transforms [BNT19]. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> 4.3.6. Nonce Hiding > >>>> ... > >>>> Examples: Nonce-hiding transforms [BNT19]. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We made minor changes to the quoted text > >>>> (lowercased "the" > >>>> and changed "beyond" to "besides") to exactly match the text at [A14]. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> In [A14], the notion of 'Plaintext > >>>> Awareness' is introduced, capturing the best possible > >>>> confidentiality under RUP in the following sense: 'The adversary > >>>> cannot gain any additional knowledge about the plaintext from > >>>> decryption queries beyond what it can derive from encryption > >>>> queries'. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "as should all trade-offs be"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> In an > >>>> application, the requirements for additional AEAD properties SHOULD > >>>> be highly motivated and justified, as should all trade-offs be > >>>> carefully considered. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> In an > >>>> application, the requirements for additional AEAD properties SHOULD > >>>> be highly motivated and justified, and all trade-offs should be > >>>> carefully considered. > >>>> > >>>> Or: > >>>> In an > >>>> application, the requirements for additional AEAD properties SHOULD > >>>> be highly motivated and justified, as all trade-offs should be > >>>> carefully considered. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] The URL in this reference entry points to a 2008 > >>>> publication of > >>>> the paper, but the information in the reference entry is for a 2000 > >>>> publication. Which would you like to cite? > >>>> > >>>> 2008 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-008-9026-x > >>>> 2000 - https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44448-3_41 > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [BN2000] Bellare, M. and C. Namprempre, "Authenticated Encryption: > >>>> Relations among Notions and Analysis of the Generic > >>>> Composition Paradigm", Proceedings of ASIACRYPT 2000, > >>>> Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1976, pp. 531-545, > >>>> DOI 10.1007/s00145-008-9026-x, 2000, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-008-9026-x>. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps (1) - 2000 paper: > >>>> [BN2000] Bellare, M. and C. Namprempre, "Authenticated Encryption: > >>>> Relations among Notions and Analysis of the Generic > >>>> Composition Paradigm", Advances in Cryptology - ASIACRYPT > >>>> 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1976, pp. > >>>> 531-545, DOI 10.1007/3-540-44448-3_41, 2000, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44448-3_41>. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps (2) - 2008 paper: > >>>> [BN2000] Bellare, M. and C. Namprempre, "Authenticated Encryption: > >>>> Relations among Notions and Analysis of the Generic > >>>> Composition Paradigm", Journal of Cryptology, vol. 21, > >>>> pp. 469–491, > >>>> DOI 10.1007/s00145-008-9026-x, July 2008, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-008-9026-x>. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the title in the reference entry to > >>>> match the > >>>> title in the provided URL. > >>>> > >>>> Original; > >>>> [GPPS19] Guo, C., Pereira, O., Peters, T., and FX. Standaert, > >>>> "Authenticated Encryption with Nonce Misuse and Physical > >>>> Leakages: Definitions, Separation Results and Leveled > >>>> Constructions", Progress in Cryptology - LATINCRYPT 2019. > >>>> LATINCRYPT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol > >>>> 11774. Springer, Cham, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-30530-7_8, > >>>> 2019, <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30530-7_8>. > >>>> > >>>> Updated: > >>>> [GPPS19] Guo, C., Pereira, O., Peters, T., and F.-X. Standaert, > >>>> "Authenticated Encryption with Nonce Misuse and Physical > >>>> Leakages: Definitions, Separation Results and First > >>>> Construction", Progress in Cryptology - LATINCRYPT 2019, > >>>> Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11774, pp. > >>>> 150-172, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-30530-7_8, 2019, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30530-7_8>. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Per the provided URL, the date for this reference > >>>> is "2017" > >>>> rather than "2016". We updated the reference entry accordingly and also > >>>> updated the citation tag from from "[EV16]" to "[EV17]". > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [EV16] Endignoux, G. and D. Vizár, "Linking Online Misuse- > >>>> Resistant Authenticated Encryption and Blockwise Attack > >>>> Models", IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology, > >>>> DOI 10.13154/TOSC.V2016.I2.125-144, 2016, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.13154/TOSC.V2016.I2.125-144>. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> [EV17] Endignoux, G. and D. Vizár, "Linking Online Misuse- > >>>> Resistant Authenticated Encryption and Blockwise Attack > >>>> Models", IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology, vol. > >>>> 2016, no. 2, pp. 125-144, > >>>> DOI 10.13154/TOSC.V2016.I2.125-144, 2017, > >>>> <https://doi.org/10.13154/TOSC.V2016.I2.125-144>. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> An AEAD algorithm allows re-encrypting and authenticating a > >>>> message (associated data and a plaintext pair), which only partly > >>>> differs from some previous message, faster than processing it from > >>>> scratch. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> For a message that only partly differs from some previous message, an > >>>> AEAD algorithm allows re-encrypting and authenticating that > >>>> message (associated data and a plaintext pair) faster than processing > >>>> it > >>>> from scratch. > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] We updated "Additional Functionality AEAD class" and > >>>> "Additional > >>>> Functionality AEAD algorithm" as follows. Please review. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Most importantly, for every Additional Functionality AEAD class, > >>>> conventional security properties must be redefined concerning the > >>>> targeted additional functionality and the new interface. > >>>> ... > >>>> Although it > >>>> might be possible to consider a particular Additional Functionality > >>>> AEAD algorithm as a conventional AEAD algorithm ... > >>>> > >>>> Updated: > >>>> Most importantly, for every AEAD class with additional functionality, > >>>> conventional security properties must be redefined concerning the > >>>> targeted additional functionality and the new interface. > >>>> ... > >>>> Although it > >>>> might be possible to consider a particular > >>>> AEAD algorithm with additional functionality as a conventional AEAD > >>>> algorithm ... > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations > >>>> > >>>> a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations > >>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > >>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > >>>> > >>>> Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) > >>>> Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) > >>>> Voice over IP (VoIP) > >>>> Multilinear Galois Mode (MGM) > >>>> Synthetic Initialization Vector (SIV) > >>>> Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> b) How should "CCA" be expanded here? As "Congestion Control Algorithm > >>>> (CCA)" > >>>> or something else? Also, how should "CPA" be expanded here? As > >>>> "Certification > >>>> Path Advertisement (CPA)"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Security notion: CPA resilience (confidentiality), authenticity > >>>> resilience (integrity), CCA resilience (authenticated encryption) > >>>> [ADL17]. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> c) How should "RAE" be expanded? As "Robust Authenticated Encryption" or > >>>> something else? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Security notion: RAE [HKR2015]. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> c) Should any of the following be expanded or defined? Are these names of > >>>> things rather than abbreviations that should be expanded? > >>>> > >>>> Note that these do not appear on our Abbreviations List at > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list. Also note > >>>> that we > >>>> do not expand fixed names for things (e.g., algorithms like AES-GCM). > >>>> > >>>> IND-CPA > >>>> IND-CTXT > >>>> D-LORS-BCPA > >>>> B-INT-CTXT > >>>> INT-RUP > >>>> GCM-RUP > >>>> SAEF > >>>> CMT > >>>> CMT-4 > >>>> CMT-1 > >>>> CIL1 > >>>> CCAL1 > >>>> CCAmL2 > >>>> TEDT > >>>> MRAE > >>>> QCB > >>>> AEZ > >>>> mu-ind > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Lists in Sections 4 and Appendix A > >>>> > >>>> a) May we update "Security notion:" to "Security notions:" (plural) > >>>> throughout? We see that "Examples:" and "Applications:" are plural. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> b) We used newline="true" for these lists; let us know if you would like > >>>> to > >>>> use newline="false" instead. > >>>> > >>>> Example of newline="true": > >>>> Definition: > >>>> An AEAD algorithm guarantees that the plaintext is not available > >>>> to an active, nonce-respecting adversary. > >>>> > >>>> Security notion: > >>>> IND-CCA [BN2000] (or IND-CCA2 [S04]) > >>>> > >>>> Synonyms: > >>>> Message privacy > >>>> > >>>> Example of newline="false": > >>>> Definition: An AEAD algorithm allows one to ensure that the > >>>> ciphertext and the associated data have not been changed or forged > >>>> by an active, nonce-respecting adversary. > >>>> > >>>> Security notion: IND-CTXT [BN2000] (or AUTH [R02]) > >>>> > >>>> Synonyms: Message authentication, authenticity > >>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 16) <!-- [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. > >>>> > >>>> RFC Editor/rv > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 17, 2025, at 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>> > >>>> Updated 2025/04/17 > >>>> > >>>> 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/rfc9771.xml > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.pdf > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771.txt > >>>> > >>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>>> > >>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9771-xmldiff1.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tracking progress > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> > >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771 > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>> > >>>> RFC Editor > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> RFC9771 (draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-properties-09) > >>>> > >>>> Title : Properties of AEAD Algorithms > >>>> Author(s) : A. Bozhko > >>>> WG Chair(s) : > >>>> Area Director(s) : > >>>> > >>>> > >>> <rfc9771.xml> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
