I reviewed this and approve the change. -Nick
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 11:17 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nick* and Benoit, > > *Nick (Document Shepherd) - This is a friendly reminder to review and > approve of this added sentence at the end of Section 1. > > Old: > This document represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research > Group (CFRG) in the IRTF. It is not an IETF product and is not a standard. > > Current: > This document represents the consensus of the Crypto Forum Research > Group (CFRG) in the IRTF. It has been reviewed by two members of the > Crypto Review Panel, as well as by several members of the CFRG. It > is not an IETF product and is not a standard. > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48diff.html > > Benoit - Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 > > Once we receive approval from *Nick, we will move this document forward in > the publication process. > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Benoit Viguier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Alanna, > > I also approve. > > Kind regards, > > Benoit. > > On 10/6/25 17:58, Alanna Paloma wrote: > > Hi John and GIlles, > > We have updated "Original Dialog Identifier (ODI)” to "Object Identifier > (OID)”. See the files below. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-auth48rfcdiff.html > (AUTH48 changes side by side) > > Please note that we are awaiting approvals from Benoît, Joan, and Nick > (Document Shepherd) prior to moving this document forward in the > publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 4:46 AM, Gilles VAN ASSCHE <gilles.vanassche= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > Thank you for spotting this! > Dear Alanna Paloma, > I think that John is right and that the intended meaning was indeed “OID” > for “object identifier”. Is it still possible to change this? > Sorry for missing it in my review. > Thanks & kind regards, > Gilles > From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Sent: dimanche 5 octobre > 2025 13:12 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9861 > <draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-17> for your review > Hi, > > I stumbled upon this AUTH48 version while recommending WebCrypto to add > TurboSHAKE128, TurboSHAKE256, KT128 and KT256. > https://github.com/WICG/webcrypto-modern-algos/issues/31 > > 21 February 2025: The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. > It is typically a short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g. URI, > ODI...). > September 2025: The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. > It is typically a short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g., URI, > Original Dialog Identifier (ODI), etc.). > > Original Dialog Identifier (ODI) is a very obscure term from RFC 5502. I > am all for IETF highlighting 3GPP technology, but wasn’t ODI just a > spelling error that should have been OID? > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5502.html > New: The Customization string MAY serve as domain separation. It is > typically a short string such as a name or an identifier (e.g., URI, Object > Identifier (OID), etc.). > > Cheers, > John > On 2025-09-16, 03:17, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> wrote: > *****IMPORTANT***** > Updated 2025/09/15 > 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/rfc9861.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861.txt > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9861-xmldiff1.html > Tracking progress > ----------------- > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9861 > Please let us know if you have any questions. > Thank you for your cooperation, > RFC Editor > -------------------------------------- > RFC9861 (draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-17) > Title : KangarooTwelve and TurboSHAKE > Author(s) : B. Viguier, D. Wong, Ed., G. Assche, Ed., Q. Dang, Ed., J. > Daemen, Ed. WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : > > -- > Kind regards, > > Benoît Viguier > PhD — Cryptographer | Software Engineer > Cryptography & Formal Methods > ABN AMRO | Secure Coding > Groenelaan 2, 1186 AA Amstelveen | Nederlands | www.viguier.nl > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
