Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stanislav,

Thank you for your updated XML file and your replies to our questions.  The files are available here: 

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.html

AUTH48 diff: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-auth48diff.html

Comprehensive diffs: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-rfcdiff.html (side by side)


Authors, please let us know if you approve the RFC for publication. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the process.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg




> On Feb 8, 2023, at 4:07 AM, Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <svs=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear RFC Editor Team,
> 
> Thank you so much for your careful reading of the draft and your valuable comments!
> We have addressed them. 
> Please find attached the updated XML file.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stanislav Smyshlyaev, Ph.D.
> Deputy CEO, CryptoPro LLC
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:27 AM
> To: Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <[e-mail]>; Алексеев Евгений Константинович <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Бабуева Александра Алексеевна <[e-mail]>; Никифорова Лидия Олеговна <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Generally, authors use a single first initial with a surname in the header.  Is the use of two initials intentional?  If an update is necessary, please let us know the desired form.
> 
> Original (from the document header):
> S.V. Smyshlyaev, Ed.
> E.K. Alekseev
> E.S. Griboedova
> A.A. Babueva
> L.O. Nikiforova
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [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). -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] This sentence seems to be missing a verb. Would the following suggestion make the text more clear for readers?
> 
> Original: 
> Each cipher suite specifies a pair of a record protection algorithm (see Section 4.1) and a hash algorithm (Section 4.2).
> 
> Perhaps: 
> Each cipher suite specifies a pair consisting of a record protection algorithm (see Section 4.1) and a hash algorithm (Section 4.2). -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rewording this sentence for easy comprehension. 
> Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?
> 
> Original: 
> In order to decrypt and verify a protected record with sequence number seqnum the algorithm takes as an input: sender_record_write_key, which is derived from sender_write_key, nonce, additional_data and the AEADEncrypted value.
> 
> Perhaps: 
> In order to decrypt and verify a protected record with sequence number seqnum, the algorithm takes sender_record_write_key as an input, which is derived from sender_write_key, nonce, additional_data, and the AEADEncrypted value. -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred values for "type" 
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> 
> In addition, we have updated the <artwork> elements in this document to sourcecode. Please let us know any objections. -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Some tables in this document do not have titles.
> Please review, and provide titles for untitled tables if desired. -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] This sentence seems to be missing a verb. Would the following
> suggestion make the text easier to understand for readers?  
> 
> Original:
> Each signature scheme specifies a pair of the signature algorithm
> (see Section 5.1) and the elliptic curve (see Section 5.2).
> 
> Perhaps:
> Each signature scheme specifies a pair consisting of the signature algorithm
> (see Section 5.1) and the elliptic curve (see Section 5.2). --> 
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Table 3: Is the space before the comma in the Signature Algorithm column intentional?  For example, should the following:
> 
> |gostr34102012_256a|GOST R 34.10-2012 , 32-byte key length|RFC 7091|
> 
> be updated as follows: 
> |gostr34102012_256a|GOST R 34.10-2012, 32-byte key length|RFC 7091|
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] There seems to be a missing article in this sentence. 
> Would a rephrase be appropriate here?
> 
> Original: 
> Key exchange and authentication process in case of using the
> TLS13_GOST profile is defined in Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
> 
> Perhaps: 
> The key exchange and authentication process for using the
> TLS13_GOST profile is defined in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the usage of "which" to "that" for the 
> following items in this list since they appear to be restrictive clauses. 
> Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original: 
> * If server authentication via a certificate is required, the
> extension_data field of the "signature_algorithms" extension MUST contain the
> values defined in Section 5, which correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012
> signature algorithm.
> 
> * If server authentication via a certificate is required and the client uses
> optional "signature_algorithms_cert" extension, the extension_data field of
> this extension SHOULD contain the values defined in Section 5, which
> correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature algorithm.
> 
> Current: 
> * If server authentication via a certificate is required, the
> extension_data field of the "signature_algorithms" extension MUST contain the
> values defined in Section 5 that correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature
> algorithm.
> 
> * If server authentication via a certificate is required and the client uses
> optional "signature_algorithms_cert" extension, the extension_data field of
> this extension SHOULD contain the values defined in Section 5 that correspond
> to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature algorithm. -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the
> comments will be deleted prior to publication. -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Table 6: Note that we have closed the breaks in the Description to avoid having multiple underscores following 256.  However, 
> this makes the table extend beyond the margins.  May we remove the Reference 
> column and add text that each row references this RFC?  For example:
> 
>   IANA has added the following values to the "TLS Cipher Suites"
>   registry with a reference to this RFC: 
> 
>   +=====+=========================================+=======+===========+
>   |Value|Description                              |DTLS-OK|Recommended|
>   +=====+=========================================+=======+===========+
>   |0xC1,|TLS_GOSTR341112_256_WITH_KUZNYECHIK_MGM_L|N      |N          |
>   |0x03 |                                         |       |           |
>   ... 
> 
> 
> In addiiton, IANA lists the values with no space, for example, 0x00,0x00, 
> while this document includes a space after the comma.  We do not believe any 
> updates are required, but please review. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing this sentence for easy comprehension. 
> Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?  In addition, 
> please confirm that the reference to table 5 is correct.  
> 
> Original: 
> Due to historical reasons in addition to the curve identifier values
> listed in Table 5 there exist some additional identifier values that
> correspond to the signature schemes as follows.
> 
> Perhaps: 
> In addition to the curve identifier values listed in Table 5, there are some
> additional identifier values that correspond to the signature schemes for historical reasons.  They are as follows: -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] Appendixes A.1.1 and A.2.1 start with the following sentence.  
> We are having trouble parsing this text.  Please clarify. 
> 
> Original:
>   Test examples are given for the following order of using the TLS13_GOST 
>   profile:
> 
> Perhaps A:
>   Test examples are given in the following order to use the TLS13_GOST 
>   profile:
> 
> Perhaps B:
>   The following test examples are provided for using the TLS13_GOST profile:
> 
> -->
> 
> 
> 15) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows? 
> 
> Original:
>   3.  The server side only authentication is used.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   3.  Authentication is only used on the server side.
> -->
> 
> 
> 16) <!-- [rfced] May we update instances of "legasy_session_id" to use 
> "legacy" or is the use of "legasy" intentional? 
> -->
> 
> 
> 17) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? 
> 
> Original:
>   3.  The server and client sides authentication is used.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   3.  Authentication is used on the server and client sides.
> -->
> 
> 
> 18) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be 
> used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
> they may be made consistent. We will update the document to use the forms
> on the left if there are no objections.
> 
> signature scheme vs. SignatureScheme
> hash algorithm vs. Hash algorithm -->
> 
> 
> 19) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 6, 2023, at 8:48 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/02/06
> 
> 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
> 
>   *  [e-mail] (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).
> 
>   *  [e-mail], 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, 
>        [e-mail] 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/rfc9367.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-xmldiff1.html
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
> diff files of the XML.  
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9367
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9367 (draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08)
> 
> Title            : GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
> Author(s)        : S. Smyshlyaev, Ed., E. Alekseev, E. Griboedova, A. Babueva, L. Nikiforova
> WG Chair(s)      : 
> Area Director(s) : 
> 
> 
> 
> <rfc9367.xml>