Hi Adam, Apologies for the delay. We have updated the document and posted the revised files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.html
Diffs highlighting the most recent udpates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you. Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Oct 17, 2025, at 3:12 AM, Adam R <[email protected]> wrote: > > One other small correction courtesy of Sean Turner - the abstract suggests > the public key syntax is included in the document, but we removed that when > it was moved to dilithium-certs instead. > > OLD: > In addition, the algorithm identifier and public key syntax are provided. > > NEW: > In addition, the algorithm identifier syntax is provided. > > > Thanks, > > Adam > > From: Adam R <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 16:00 > To: Deb Cooley <[email protected]>; Russ Housley <[email protected]> > Cc: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>; Ben S3 <[email protected]>; > RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9882 <draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07> for your > review > > I did. I expect to approve once that's done, though. > > I'll note that Daniel's on vacation this week, and Ben's away until the 23rd, > so I'll be the only author able to approve for a while. > > From: Deb Cooley <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 15:56 > To: Russ Housley <[email protected]> > Cc: Adam R <[email protected]>; Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>; > Ben S3 <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9882 <draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07> for your > review > > And Adam asked for a change? > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:08 AM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > None of the authors have approved the draft yet. > > See https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9882 > > Russ > > > On Oct 14, 2025, at 7:21 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are we waiting on an update? or approvals by authors? > > Deb (attempting to not be twitchy) > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 3:44 PM Adam R <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sandy, > > Sorry, one last thing I spotted. There's been an "is" added in Section 3.3 > that changes the meaning of the text. The intended meaning is that the > security strength offered is either the digest algorithm's strength, or the > strength of the ML-DSA parameter set, depending on which value is lower. The > text change suggested below to reverts the change and suggests alternative > text to make this a bit clearer, but of course I'm happy for it to be tweaked > as is required: > > OLD: > The overall security strength offered by an ML-DSA signature calculated over > signed attributes is the floor of the digest algorithm's strength and is the > strength of the ML-DSA parameter set. > > NEW: > The overall security strength offered by an ML-DSA signature calculated over > signed attributes is constrained by either the digest algorithm's strength or > the strength of the ML-DSA parameter set, whichever is lower. > > Otherwise, everything looks good to go to me. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 20:22 > To: Adam R <[email protected]> > Cc: Ben S3 <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Russ > Housley <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9882 <draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07> for your > review > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this > is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > Hi Adam and Ben, > > The document has been updated as described below. The current files are > available here: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268246479%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uqerqXC6nzT9MwE3Wi3K1PTn9aKhrPYtyZhZfV%2Bpk2E%3D&reserved=0 > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268268275%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=phy5HggE1xt96aJPJsvS4yUqiVwPhBMRWHbcI9IIjgU%3D&reserved=0 > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268282284%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ov69TGX7uxf6OOlYSY9z3E9yfnpj%2BzyW0KCN%2FM3PWWI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268295960%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aWOegTwccTsZt6DzNPBpMl5DF49uguB7U2ST6cXFnHM%3D&reserved=0 > > AUTH48 diffs: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268314893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vHj8DsiiTxLubiI8mI8LX%2BU32wU57aS5Tkgtlqyr5eU%3D&reserved=0 > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268328968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ka%2B1vNFu1FJbxX%2BmYm9ciw8Lz0vw2xnaICR0p4eMSjo%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268342596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j0oHVO5rhHrBZmGXixYkJz3hJZ4qlaCykqvc9dtcJz4%3D&reserved=0 > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268356005%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=a0bc4VjqUR0sE6qi64cXezLOJ8DEzESVNzw7wIcIXJw%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > Please review and let us if any further updates are needed or if you approve > the RFC for publication. > > Thank you, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Oct 10, 2025, at 8:05 AM, Adam R <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > • The authors (Ben included) have had a discussion on this and we think > > we can just remove "traditional" entirely; describing the algorithm as a > > "post-quantum" algorithm as we have elsewhere in the document conveys the > > intended meaning. > > > > OLD: > > The Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) is a digital > > signature algorithm standardised by the US National Institute of Standards > > and Technology (NIST) as part of their post-quantum cryptography > > standardisation process. > > It is intended to be secure against both "traditional" cryptographic > > attacks, as well as attacks utilising a quantum computer. > > > > NEW: > > The Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) is a > > post-quantum digital signature algorithm standardised by the US National > > Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of their post-quantum > > cryptography standardisation process. > > > > • We've discussed with the authors of dilithium-certs and Deb, and are > > content that the meaning of the text is the same in both instances and > > hence no wording changes are required. > > > > • I also think this is fine. > > > > • Base64-encoded examples seem somewhat rare in CMS RFCs, I had a quick > > look at recent examples and I only found RFC 9690. That RFC tags its > > examples as artwork. The examples in question aren't X.509, so I would > > leave them as-is or tag as artwork. If Russ has an opinion (as an author of > > RFC 9690 and many more CMS RFCs), I'd go with that. > > > > • I agree with Ben. > > > > I agree with Ben's typo correction for Section 6, and suggest an additional > > change to give that table a title: > > OLD: > > <table anchor="oid"> > > <thead> > > <tr> > > <th>Decimal</th> > > <th>Description</th> > > <th>Refernece</th> > > </tr> > > </thead> > > <tbody> > > <tr> > > <td>83</td> > > <td>id-mod-ml-dsa-2024</td> > > <td>RFC 9882</td> > > </tr> > > </tbody> > > </table> > > > > NEW: > > <table anchor="oid"> > > <name>Object Identifier Assignments</name> > > <thead> > > <tr> > > <th>Decimal</th> > > <th>Description</th> > > <th>Reference</th> > > </tr> > > </thead> > > <tbody> > > <tr> > > <td>83</td> > > <td>id-mod-ml-dsa-2024</td> > > <td>RFC 9882</td> > > </tr> > > </tbody> > > </table> > > > > > > I would suggest one other grammatical change in Section 5: > > > > OLD: > > If ML-DSA signing is implemented in a hardware device such as the hardware > > security module (HSM) or portable cryptographic token, implementers might > > want to avoid sending the full content to the device for performance > > reasons. > > > > NEW: > > If ML-DSA signing is implemented in a hardware device such as a hardware > > security module (HSM) or a portable cryptographic token, implementers might > > want to avoid sending the full content to the device for performance > > reasons. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > From: Ben S3 <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 08:15 > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Adam R > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9882 <draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07> for > > your review > > > > Thanks Sandy! > > > > To the specific points below: > > > > 1) Use of "Traditional" in our draft is intended to mirror the use of > > traditional in RFC 9794. Traditional cryptographic algorithms are meant to > > be secure against traditional cryptographic attacks, whereas PQ algorithms > > are secure against both traditional and quantum attacks. Whilst not > > explicitly defined, the terminology is precise enough that it is fully > > understood in the post-quantum context. I'd therefore leave it as it is. > > > > 2) I agree they should be the same, but I think I prefer our wording. I'll > > reach out to the authors of dilithium-certs. > > > > 3) Fine by me. > > > > 4) These are not X.509 artefacts, so I propose leaving the type attribute > > unset. > > > > 5) I've reviewed the guidance - I believe our document has no inclusivity > > concerns. > > > > Additional points: > > > > Section 6: > > > > OLD: > > +=========+====================+===========+ > > | Decimal | Description | Refernece | > > +=========+====================+===========+ > > | 83 | id-mod-ml-dsa-2024 | RFC 9882 | > > +---------+--------------------+-----------+ > > > > NEW: > > +=========+====================+===========+ > > | Decimal | Description | Reference | > > +=========+====================+===========+ > > | 83 | id-mod-ml-dsa-2024 | RFC 9882 | > > +---------+--------------------+-----------+ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Sent: 10 October 2025 00:56 > > To: Ben S3 <[email protected]>; Adam R <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9882 <draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07> for > > your review > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] We note that "traditional" is in quotes, but please > > consider whether it should be updated for clarity. The term is ambiguous; > > "tradition" is a subjective term because it is not the same for everyone. > > > > Original: > > It is intended to be secure > > against both "traditional" cryptographic attacks, as well as attacks > > utilising a quantum computer. > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] The following was provided in response to the intake form: > > > > This document and draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates use > > the same text for one of the security considerations: "ML-DSA > > depends on high quality random numbers...". That paragraph > > should be kept the same between both documents. > > > > Should the paragraphs be identical? They do not currently match. Please > > review and let us know how you would like to proceed. > > > > Currently in RFC-to-be 9881 <draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates>: > > ML-DSA depends on high quality random numbers that are suitable for > > use in cryptography. The use of inadequate pseudo-random number > > generators (PRNGs) to generate such values can significantly > > undermine various security properties. For instance, using an > > inadequate PRNG for key generation might allow an attacker to > > efficiently recover the private key by trying a small set of > > possibilities, rather than brute-force searching the whole keyspace. > > The generation of random numbers of a sufficient level of quality for > > use in cryptography is difficult; see Section 3.6.1 of [FIPS204] for > > some additional information. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] [CSOR] FYI: We have updated the date for this reference > > from 20 August 2024 to 13 June 2025 to match the information provided at > > the URL. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the text marked <sourcecode> and <artwork>, > > please review and let us know if any updates are needed. The following was > > provided in response via the intake form: > > > > The draft features an ASN.1 module that is tagged as source code > > in the XML. The module has been tested to confirm that it compiles. > > The draft also features example encodings in base64/PEM format and > > in a parsed representation. These are artefacts produced by an > > implementation rather than "source code" per se, so aren't tagged > > that way. Regardless, we've tested the examples against an independent > > implementation to make sure they work. > > > > Please consider whether some should be marked as "x509" for consistency > > with RFC-to-be 9881 <draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates>, as the > > authors of RFC 9881 provided the following guidance: > > > > And the PEM examples in the Appendix C.3 can become type “x509”. > > > > RFC-to-be 9881 has not yet been updated. > > > > Note that the current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268369318%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FvZG8aXo3FUtJemb9RG3zCCB%2FHBv1ZzpBp0U%2BnfRTHU%3D&reserved=0>. > > If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to > > suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to > > leave the "type" attribute not set. > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > > online Style Guide > > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268382976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qC0%2BlreUc%2FAnrJptTYFtdKkcgFes%2FR6rq1W5fhaZoUs%3D&reserved=0> > > 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. > > Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2025, at 4:51 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/10/09 > > > > 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268396289%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ESZs4U6kw8XiwEMiiya9mgI4yYXOs9bUmm2YYPsSVd8%3D&reserved=0). > > > > 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268409594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LoVNU82ed0EY43ttWhNEiMBFdQhTXhVQhiCwftjLa0g%3D&reserved=0). > > > > * 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268423430%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CX44Od6rwC4KIMDBWBbI91ChDiSkeSAS4q5%2Brzt%2FgC8%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > * 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268437376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hkixNS2Wd7Pm7JUtZxAsUbMNIJabo4wi6gvdcVdJY1o%3D&reserved=0 > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268450579%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9R7tNDKE7cjWCdxbv1U%2BSHfxNp41WocYr90NZd0nwQk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > * 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.xml&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268466912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E1ttndI6QoKO5Kh%2FJzo4pLT4w2lB0Lf3SyHpAKgiy0U%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268480506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S0f69ao7lAF1eY7CdJ3y0Qi7aIWilHt2QOKg%2BdMobDI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268493915%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=B95nK%2BMp4LbYxqSsclN13NqSkaNm8bzfQMMEh5%2FCs4s%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882.txt&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268507232%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZLqnM4hf5VVAQDl%2F6JVQ1dKYv3mHz%2BT1rC6CqFvWdLI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268520523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qutguWINIvH7HtM9l2TtpfZl2wSJoAHVW2wT%2FXCg1Vk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268533784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=grW8b3egwN5wPE%2FNLHKO7LP%2BnN5vKICbOTP8Txu4txQ%3D&reserved=0 > > (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9882-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268547103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7sC6328tZnfKJxp03mR9iPiE%2B5olPxnfM3jDAZwJyg0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9882&data=05%7C02%7CAdam.r%40ncsc.gov.uk%7Cdb7d96e5cb2346297b2008de08332eaf%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C638957213268560479%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nrRcJB5nUAsuvk4%2BFyhEdIuSHUsNjW5vFIGkQWoehn8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC 9882 (draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa-07) > > > > Title : Use of the ML-DSA Signature Algorithm in the > > Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) > > Author(s) : B. Salter, A. Raine, 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]
