Hi Alicja, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9879).
We have a couple of comments: 1) For question #2, do you prefer the original, or would like for us to update to the text you provided (see below)? Once this has been addressed, we will begin to prepare the document for publication. > so the closest one would be: > > Unfortunately, [RFC7292] > mandates the use of a password-based key derivation > function that is specific to PKCS #12 and that PBKDF only allows for > change of the underlying message digest > function. 2) You also noted this: > I don't know the significance of the fact that the included ASN.1 Module > addresses one of the errata filed against the RFCs updated by this document. When a document updates or obsoletes other RFCs, we ask the authors to review the errata for those RFCs to ensure that none of the errors appear in the current document. In the past, we have encountered instances where errata were not addressed or where an erratum was addressed but the erratum report itself had not been verified or held for document update. For this document, the issue reported in EID 5808 (set as verified) is not repeated in this document, so no further action is needed. Thank you for reviewing the errata. Best regards, Rebecca VanRheenen RFC Production Center > On Sep 12, 2025, at 9:49 AM, Alicja Kario > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know the significance of the fact that the included ASN.1 Module > addresses one of the errata filed against the RFCs updated by this document. > > I don't think the proposed changes to Introduction actually makes the text > clearer. > > All the other included changes look good to me, so I'm OK with it > being published as-is. > > On Tuesday, 9 September 2025 01:59:11 CEST, [email protected] wrote: >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/09/08 >> >> 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/rfc9879.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9879-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9879 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9879 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc9579bis-06) >> >> Title : Use of Password-Based Message Authentication Code 1 >> (PBMAC1) in PKCS #12 Syntax >> Author(s) : A. Kario >> WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek >> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >> >> >> >> > > -- > Regards, > Alicja Kario > Principal Quality Engineer, RHEL Crypto team > Web: www.cz.redhat.com > Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, Czech Republic > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
