I approve this for publication. Daniel
On 2025-10-18 1:24 a.m., Sandy Ginoza wrote: 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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 16:00 To: Deb Cooley <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Russ Housley <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Ben S3 <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 15:56 To: Russ Housley <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Adam R <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Ben S3 <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 20:22 To: Adam R <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Ben S3 <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Russ Housley <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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]<mailto:[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://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 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 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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 08:15 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Adam R <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 10 October 2025 00:56 To: Ben S3 <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Adam R <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types><https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. 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://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language><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. Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Oct 9, 2025, at 4:51 PM, [email protected]<mailto:[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://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><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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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/rfc9882.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9882-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9882 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]
