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 this document does not seem to describe ML-KEM as an algorithm. Is this correct? If not, we wonder about an update to the document title. Original: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure - Algorithm Identifiers for the Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) Perhaps: Conventions for Using ML-KEM Algorithms in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "the earlier" because it is redundant with "prior to". Please let us know if it is important to specify "earlier versions". Original: Prior to standardization, the earlier versions of the mechanism were known as Kyber. Current: Prior to standardization, versions of the mechanism were known as Kyber. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the parenthetical text for clarity. Please let us know if corrections are needed. Original: If the keyUsage extension is present in certificates, then keyEncipherement MUST be the only key usage set for certificates that indicate id-alg- ml-kem-* in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, (with * either 512, 768, or 1024.) Current: ... (with * being one of 512, 768, or 1024.) --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "but" be "and", or perhaps "so"? It's not clear that the text after "but" is in contrast to the earlier part of the sentence. Original: Recipients that do not perform this seed consistency check avoid keygen and compare operations, but are unable to ensure that the seed and expandedKey match. Perhaps: Recipients that do not perform this seed consistency check avoid keygen and compare operations and are unable to ensure that the seed and expandedKey match. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] References a) FYI: We updated the date of [CSOR] from 20 August 2024 to 13 June 2025 to match the one provided at the URL. Original: [CSOR] NIST, "Computer Security Objects Register", 20 August 2024, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/computer-security- objects-register/algorithm-registration>. Current: [CSOR] NIST, "Computer Security Objects Register (CSOR)", 13 June 2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/computer-security- objects-register/algorithm-registration>. b) FYI: We've updated the date for [NIST-PQC] from 20 December 2016 to 28 July 2025 to match the date provided at the URL. Original: [NIST-PQC] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "Post-Quantum Cryptography Project", 20 December 2016, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum- cryptography>. Current: [NIST-PQC] NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)", 28 July 2025, <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum- cryptography>. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the WARNING should be tagged as an <aside>, which is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). Original: C.4. Examples of Bad Private Keys | WARNING: These private keys are purposely bad do not use them | in production systems. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We have added expansions for abbreviations throughout the document and use abbreviated forms for expansions upon first use. Please let us know any objections. --> 9) <!-- [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. In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for clarity. While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. Possible substitutions for "traditional" (used in past RFCs) include "commonly used", "typical", "long-established", "conventional", and "time-honored". --> Thank you. Madison Church and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Feb 9, 2026, at 8:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2026/02/09 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>. * 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/rfc9935.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9935 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9935 (draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-11) Title : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure - Algorithm Identifiers for the Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) Author(s) : S. Turner, P. Kampanakis, J. Massimo, B. Westerbaan 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]
