Re: [auth48] [ISE] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 (was "Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-15> for your review")
Sharon Goldberg <sharon.goldbe@gmail.com> Fri, 18 August 2023 21:53 UTC
Return-Path: <sharon.goldbe@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52CFC14CF0D; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_DOTEDU=1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ZOSo7QgCPfw; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE6CC14CE5D; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4fe48d0ab0fso1979207e87.1; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1692395607; x=1693000407; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eT3gz30f/jOFF0xB5OmpcOuDMhFMsrkjmzZN5inf3z4=; b=Dk3n+BZnAkLvLgifRUSRRY2H46IO9wlHkIjJTFaKFc/hXTqT1Py5C6+hwgKgKz88/r GADVJlMsgYdNZnY0cunOI+VPQrUEgyOMv7A3gbQz+wgS8LHKsruCUdzzBOvTg7qsUt3P ssaB/1h0dQwK3XPvbWQS7YqQkLU2QUNkAxU50UWi2+4c8DGSItJoa1WzFpmaciqqubGz zvOY9H+HCuSxldG76IQDdglgzqR3jS7nhHN/Ht1j5eJ+Wa95PT00qPmscxRq7gWIjxL7 A5PkiziRJY22Fxuio1MbBUk8QyqoZUzB7OYEQq8yRYPhdjwiOXZZ7tTwAlQXnnUqC7XX Sf9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692395607; x=1693000407; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=eT3gz30f/jOFF0xB5OmpcOuDMhFMsrkjmzZN5inf3z4=; b=Q7CexvlC41CrCjvlP+yHiFSNt2rUui5R2vly90gph82ZPabz7qkhxWrdbYxNdG+rW1 jd/3EzAyO8joIiV24kdU7I3ZHGydYBw12UwNSzG5zbY72i4zQYGDGIX/LRvT2DpfSskW 3YlbQpP6H55tglVW/oCKTAzIpbe0Pr8/BXs3PID0shftPpYMeMDENMz2wFbdUqJrTNmg 5wbYuAiPKRJlJPEuuKEBYGOMljWdnZGSxuAc7tsQsNeEkZXR22JQChs40EfNFLfIWahA upbDMYWkMF0EQqUwFO4MHTUzlgtpMEEoU4fcCNS2CpaP46apfZYwPlRAalsQn/NHBgrs NOAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwuYx5FXF1UgHMcRANEUhJDS7LQDiQ6LxEDo0ZYLrIY62LW+ekJ Q9sU5lMD8+dqlOy6a6vCVaYxAfToMzOfqSR7pso=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEI0i2ifi/lmZhi01pb18vq5gLZxdNeZ/wPBU/381SPg0EwGhhKLVIe7DwZA/ZEt6xjKzWN+FH2NgtQfikI/zc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:32cc:b0:4fb:90c6:c31a with SMTP id f12-20020a05651232cc00b004fb90c6c31amr355110lfg.14.1692395606342; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <17CC3C9F-2D26-49D1-8193-2FDA990D80DA@amsl.com> <89243B0E-1EAB-4F9F-92A8-51D343DA6D1E@apple.com> <61F74407-2147-490F-83B9-8B5B0C446325@amsl.com> <2195AACE-9DF7-41C7-B06B-8194E21324CA@amsl.com> <0afcef46-aeb7-5ee6-5032-03bdf01407bc@rfc-editor.org> <6083E41E-C358-40E2-81C8-2B8F9C67F568@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <6083E41E-C358-40E2-81C8-2B8F9C67F568@amsl.com>
From: Sharon Goldberg <sharon.goldbe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 17:52:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHGrrQix0==L7uMMecVO54iTbYxDRZt2G65r9pZhvM3LAmTAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
Cc: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Tim Taubert <ttaubert@apple.com>, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, Leonid Reyzin <leonid.reyzin@gmail.com>, Dimitrios Papadopoulos <dipapado@cse.ust.hk>, IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>, Jan Včelák <jvcelak@ns1.com>, Nick Sullivan <nick@cloudflare.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ef820a0603398e6f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/3LH5-tBrIeJ3cth97HliYWKKzCU>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [ISE] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 (was "Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-15> for your review")
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 21:53:34 -0000
Approved. Thanks Sharon On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:12 PM Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > Hi, Eliot. So noted: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383 > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/lb > > > On Aug 18, 2023, at 2:00 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > Approved. > > > > On 18.08.23 22:49, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: > >> Hi, Eliot. > >> > >> A quick check-in with you. Do you have any further comments, or would > you like to confirm your approval of RFC-to-be 9383? > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> RFC Editor/lb > >> > >>> On Aug 18, 2023, at 1:45 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Tim. We have noted your approval: > >>> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383 > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>> RFC Editor/lb > >>> > >>>> On Aug 17, 2023, at 5:44 PM, Tim Taubert <ttaubert@apple.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you Lynne! I also approve publication of RFC 9383. > >>>> > >>>> — Tim > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Aug 17, 2023, at 00:04, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, Chris. So noted: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you! > >>>>> > >>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 2:39 PM, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, Lynne. I approve publication of RFC9383. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:19 PM, Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear Chris, Eliot, Sharon, Leonid, and Tim, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated RFCs-to-be 9381 and > 9383 to use "Prover" and "Verifier". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ** RFC-to-be 9381: The latest files are posted here. Please > refresh your browser: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastrfcdiff.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff2.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ** RFC-to-be 9383: The latest files are posted here. Please > refresh your browser: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.txt > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.pdf > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383.xml > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-lastrfcdiff.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9383-xmldiff2.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We will continue the publication process for RFC-to-be 9381. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> RFC-to-be 9383 will be published when RFC-to-be 9382 is published, > as noted on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383>. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Tim Taubert <ttaubert@apple.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Capitalized is fine to me as well. Thanks! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> — Tim > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 16. Aug 2023, at 02:48, Leonid Reyzin < > leonid.reyzin@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Agreed. Capitalized makes more sense to me, but I don't feel > strongly. Thanks for catching! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Since my email forwarding seems wonky still, can you contact me > at leonid.reyzin@gmail.com instead of @bu? > >>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2023, at 3:55 PM, Sharon Goldberg < > sharon.goldbe@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I agree with Chris. Go with capitals. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> Sharon > >>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2023, at 1:53 PM, Independent Submissions Editor > (Eliot Lear) <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I generally prefer lowercase - we're not writing legal contracts > here, but the authors can have the final say, so long as they agree. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Eliot > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 15.08.23 22:42, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi, Chris and *Eliot. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Chris, thank you for the quick reply! We'll wait a bit to see > if anyone objects; if not, we'll update per your note. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Eliot, as ISE for RFC-to-be 9383, please let us know if you're > OK with us updating per Chris's note. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 4:34 PM Christopher Wood < > caw@heapingbits.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Lynne, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Specifications I've worked with in the past have capitalized > these sorts of terms as proper nouns, but I don't think it really matters > much. If we need to choose, and assuming no one else cares strongly, I > would go with Prover and Verifier. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Chris > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 3:09 PM, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear authors of RFCs-to-be 9381 (draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-15) and 9383 > >>>>>>>>> (draft-bar-cfrg-spake2plus-08), > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Apologies, but while preparing RFC-to-be 9381 for publication, > we found > >>>>>>>>> two items that we had previously flagged internally for these two > >>>>>>>>> documents but that were not conveyed to you when these documents > were > >>>>>>>>> moved to the AUTH48 state last Spring: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These documents use both "prover" and "Prover", and both > "verifier" and > >>>>>>>>> "Verifier" (e.g., "the prover", "the Prover", "the verifier", > "the > >>>>>>>>> Verifier"). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We believe that usage (capitalization or not) for these terms > within > >>>>>>>>> and between these documents should be consistent. Please let us > know > >>>>>>>>> which form is preferred for each. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, and again, apologies for not asking about this > earlier. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Dimitris, Sharon, and Jan, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9381 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As this document is part of Cluster C450 ( > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C450) and normatively > depends on RFC-to-be 9380 (draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve), this document > will be published when RFC-to-be 9380 is published. You can follow the > progress of RFC-to-be 9380 at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9380>. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2023, at 1:43 AM, Jan Včelák <jvcelak@ns1.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the edits, everyone. The document looks good to > me. I > >>>>>>>>>>> also approve it for publication. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jan > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Sharon Goldberg < > sharon.goldbe@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, I approve this as well. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:05 AM Dimitrios Papadopoulos < > dipapado@cse.ust.hk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the detailed editing. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I also approve its publication. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dimitris > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 May 2023, at 11:52 PM, Leonid Reyzin <reyzin@bu.edu> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! I now approve it for publication. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (NB: Jan, Sharon, Dimitris: you each need to send your > approval before it can be published.) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 6:29 PM Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Leo. No worries! Fixed, and the latest files are posted > here. Please refresh your browser: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastrfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff2.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 2023, at 3:00 AM, Leonid Reyzin <reyzin@bu.edu> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so sorry for that bug. It should be 3.2.1.3. Could you > please fix that? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:00 AM Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Leo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the latest updated XML file as well! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks also for the working NIST URL. We updated the > reference listing accordingly. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, please note that the NIST document associated with > this URL does not have a Section 3.1.2.3. Which section should be cited in > the following sentence (from Section 5.5 of this document)? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * The EC group G is the NIST P-256 elliptic curve, with the > finite > >>>>>>>>>>>>> field and curve parameters as specified in Section 3.1.2.3 of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [SP-800-186] and Section 2.6 of [RFC5114]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have posted the latest files here: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-lastrfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff2.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 12, 2023, at 7:43 AM, Leonid Reyzin <reyzin@bu.edu> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lynne, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much for the quick turnaround! I made the change > I had failed to make the previous time; fixed another nit for clarity; > changed the mailing addresses for two of the authors; and provided an > alternative URL for the NIST document. All new changes are annotated with > [auth48response] in the attached xml file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 8:31 PM Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Leo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the updated XML file! The updates > and your notes were most helpful. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this item: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <!-- [auth48response] Removed "four" becuase it's > incorrect. Added "to" before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "each other". ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We did not see this update. Should "unlikely to equal each > other or to any inputs" be changed to "unlikely to be equal to each other > or to any inputs"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your note related to the stability of [X25519]: > Thank you for the information. We left as is; seventeen years seems a good > track record and indicates that it should remain stable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your > browser): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff2.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 10, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Leonid Reyzin <reyzin@bu.edu> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lynne et al., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attaching the updated XML file. Responses to edits / > comments, as well as a few new minor edits, are explained in the comments > prefixed with [auth48response]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for such a thorough pass through the > document and for all the excellent suggestions! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 5:40 PM Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jan. Thank you for checking in with us! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Jan Včelák <jvcelak@ns1.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Lynne. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. We will look at the questions and get back to > you soon. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne pá 21. 4. 2023 20:13 uživatel Lynne Bartholomew < > lbartholomew@amsl.com> napsal: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checking in with you regarding the status of this > document. Please review the questions below, and let us know how this > document should be updated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The AUTH48 status page is here: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9381 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 2023, at 11:03 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please > resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML > file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed > in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 have been adhered to in this > document. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be > listed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphanumeric order? --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Jan: We have seen both "Vcelak" and > "Včelák" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recent RFCs-to-be. Please let us know your > preference. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.5: We could not find anything > in Section 3.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that indicates that pseudorandomness cannot hold against > malicious > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key generation. Please confirm that this section number > is correct and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be clear to readers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As explained in Section 3.4, pseudorandomness cannot > hold against > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malicious key generation. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.2 and 5.2: Is pi_string > sometimes known to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been produced by RSAFDHVRF_prove (in which case > "only on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pi_string value that is known to have been produced by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RSAFDHVRF_prove" would be correct), or always (in which > case "only on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pi_string, which is known to have been produced by > RSAFDHVRF_prove" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be correct)? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important note: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RSAFDHVRF_proof_to_hash should be run only on pi_string > that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known to have been produced by RSAFDHVRF_prove, or from > within > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RSAFDHVRF_verify as specified in Section 4.3. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important note: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECVRF_proof_to_hash should be run only on pi_string that > is known > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have been produced by ECVRF_prove, or from within > ECVRF_verify > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as specified in Section 5.3. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: We don't see any mention of > the field F in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 5.5. Please confirm that this listing will be > clear to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed options (specified in Section 5.5): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F - finite field --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.1.1: This sentence does > not parse. If the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested text is not correct, please clarify > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "interpret_hash_value_as_a_point functions specified"* > and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "roughly half hash_string values". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * We see "interpret_hash_value_as_a_point - a function > that attempts" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier in this section.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note even though the loop is infinite as written, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int_to_string(ctr,1) may fail when ctr reaches 256, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret_hash_value_as_a_point functions specified in > Section 5.5 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will succeed on roughly half hash_string values. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested (we could not find evidence of multiple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret_hash_value_as_a_point functions): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that even though the loop is infinite as written and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int_to_string(ctr,1) may fail when ctr reaches 256, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret_hash_value_as_a_point function, as specified in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 5.5, will succeed on roughly half of the > hash_string > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.2.1: This sentence is > confusing as written, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the ECVRF_nonce_generation function is not > specified in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [RFC6979]. If the suggested text is not correct, please > clarify the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ECVRF_nonce_generation function is as specified in > [RFC6979] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 3.2 where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ECVRF_nonce_generation function is implemented per > the process > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in Section 3.2 of [RFC6979], where --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.2.1: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) Please confirm that "output length hlen" is correct > (i.e., should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be "output length hLen"). We ask because this is > the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of "hlen" in this document. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this something that should be clarified, along the > lines of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "this qlen is not to be confused with qLen" text a few > lines later? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hash function H is Hash and its output length hlen > (in bits) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is set as hLen*8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The hash function H is Hash, and its output length > hlen (in bits) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is set as hLen*8 (this hlen is not to be confused with > hLen, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is used in this document to represent the length > of Hash in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> octets). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) The last bullet item in this list was the only > sentence fragment. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We added a verb ("are"). If this is incorrect, please > let us know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how we can make this list parallel (i.e., either all > sentence > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragments or all complete sentences). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the other values and primitives as defined in > [RFC6979] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * All the other values and primitives are as defined in > [RFC6979]. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.5: We changed "given to > this procedure" to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "used in this procedure" here. If this is incorrect, > please provide > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying text. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important note: the public key Y given to this procedure > MUST be a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid point on E. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important note: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The public key Y used in this procedure MUST be a valid > point on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.5: Does "in order to" > refer to clearing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the x-coordinate or something else? If the suggested > text is not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, please provide clarifying text. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, bad_pk[0] (of order 4), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad_pk[2] (of order 8), and bad_pk[3] (of order 8) each > match two bad > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points, depending on the sign of the x-coordinate, which > was cleared > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in step 3, in order to make sure that it does not affect > the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, bad_pk[0] (of order 4), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad_pk[2] (of order 8), and bad_pk[3] (of order 8) each > match two bad > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points, depending on the sign of the x-coordinate, which > was cleared > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Step 3 in order to make sure that it does not affect > the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4.5: Please confirm that > "their y-coordinate" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be "their y-coordinates" here. We ask > because of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plural "Their y-coordinates" in the third sentence of > this paragraph. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no need to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shift the other bad_pk values by p (or any bad_pk values > by a larger > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple of p), because their y coordinate would exceed > 2^255; and we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure that y_string corresponds to an integer less than > 2^255 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step 3.) --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.5: This sentence is > confusing as written, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the int_to_string function is not specified in > [RFC8032]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify the > meaning. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The int_to_string function as specified in the first > paragraph of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 5.1.2 of [RFC8032]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The int_to_string function is implemented as > specified in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first paragraph of Section 5.1.2 of [RFC8032]. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.3: We had > trouble following > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this sentence. Does "the modulus n or the exponent e > are chosen not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in compliance with [RFC8017]" mean "the modulus n or the > exponent e > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not chosen, in compliance with [RFC8017]" or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the modulus n or the exponent e is chosen without > complying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with [RFC8017]" or otherwise? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, for RSA-FDH-VRF, uniqueness and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collision resistance may not hold if the keys are > generated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adversarially (specifically, if the RSA function > specified in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public key is not bijective because the modulus n or the > exponent e > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are chosen not in compliance with [RFC8017]); thus, > RSA-FDH-VRF > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined in this document does not have "full uniqueness" > and "full > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collision resistance". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Specifically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VRF output may be predictable if the RSA function > specified in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public key is far from bijective because the modulus n > or the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exponent e are chosen not in compliance with [RFC8017].) > --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.2: We found the phrasing in > these sentences > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing, as the text appears to indicate that the > equations in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question can be found in the cited documents. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the suggested updates would preserve your intended > meaning, may we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rephrase? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * For trusted collision resistance: approximately > 8*min(k/2, hLen/2) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as shown in [PWHVNRG17]). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * For selective pseudorandomness: approximately as > strong as the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security, in bits, of the RSA problem for the key (n, e) > (as shown > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in [GNPRVZ15]). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As shown in [PWHVNRG17], the security level of the > ECVRF, measured in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits, is as follows (in the random oracle model for the > functions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hash and ECVRF_encode_to_curve): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For trusted collision resistance (as discussed in > [PWHVNRG17]): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 8*min(k/2, hLen/2). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For selective pseudorandomness (as discussed in > [GNPRVZ15]: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately as strong as the security, in bits, of the > RSA > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem for the key (n, e). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As discussed in [PWHVNRG17], the security level of the > ECVRF, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured in bits, would be as follows (in the random > oracle model > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the functions Hash and ECVRF_encode_to_curve): --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3: Please confirm that > "loose", and not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lossy", is correct here. We ask because we see > "lossier security > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction" in Appendix B of [PWHVNRG17] but do not see > any words > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have "loose" in them in that document. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * They may increase security parameters to make up for > the loose > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security reduction. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.5: Does "must run in time > independent of" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean "must run in a time that is independent of", or does > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "independent" refer to "run" (in which case it should be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "independently")? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Please note that this question has also been raised for > "run in time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent of" as also found in companion document > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECVRF-P256-SHA256-SSWU and > ECVRF-EDWARDS25519-SHA512-ELL2 can be made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run in time independent of alpha, following > recommendations in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve]. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.8: We had trouble following > several sentences > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this section. Please review the following. If the > suggestions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below are not correct, please clarify the following: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the four inputs (where are these defined?) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to equal each other or to any inputs (to be equal to?) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second octets of the input (plural "octets", singular > "input") > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second octets of the inputs (plural "octets", plural > "inputs") > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last octet of the input (singular "octet", singular > "input") > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This analysis still holds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the same hash function is used, as long as the > four inputs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to the hash function for a given SK and alpha are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly unlikely to equal each other or to any > inputs given to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hash function for the same SK and different alpha. > This is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed the case for the RSA-FDH-VRF defined in this > document, because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the second octets of the input to the hash function used > in MGF1 and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proof_to_hash are different. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the second octets of the inputs to the hash function > used in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof_to_hash, challenge_generation, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encode_to_curve_try_and_increment are all different. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the last octet of the input to the hash function used > in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof_to_hash, challenge_generation, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encode_to_curve_try_and_increment is always zero, and > therefore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from the last octet of the input to the hash > function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used in ECVRF_encode_to_curve_h2c_suite, which is set > equal to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonzero length of the domain separation tag by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This analysis still holds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the same hash function is used, as long as the > four inputs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to the hash function for a given SK and alpha are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly unlikely to be equal to each other or to > any inputs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to the hash function for the same SK and different > alpha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is indeed the case for the RSA-FDH-VRF defined in > this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document, because the second octet of the inputs to the > hash > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function used in MGF1 and in proof_to_hash are different. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The second octet of the inputs to the hash function > used in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof_to_hash, challenge_generation, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encode_to_curve_try_and_increment are all different. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The last octet of the inputs to the hash function > used in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof_to_hash, challenge_generation, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encode_to_curve_try_and_increment is always zero and is > therefore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from the last octet of the inputs to the hash > function > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used in ECVRF_encode_to_curve_h2c_suite, which is set > equal to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonzero length of the domain separation tag per > [RFC9380]. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.9: This sentence does not > parse. If the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested text is not correct, please clarify "if a > group of public > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keys to share the same salt" and "group of public keys, > which may aid > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some protocol". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if a group of public keys to share the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same salt, then the hash of the VRF input alpha will be > the same for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire group of public keys, which may aid in some > protocol that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses the VRF. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if a group of public keys shares the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same salt, then the hash of the VRF input alpha will be > the same for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire group of public keys; this can be helpful for > any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that uses the VRF. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.10: It appears that one or > more words were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing in this sentence. We added the words "to the" > as shown below. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the ECVRF, the inputs ECVRF_encode_to_curve hash > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function used in producing H are then guaranteed to be > different from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other ciphersuites; since all the other hashing done by > the prover > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends on H, inputs to all the hash functions used by > the prover > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will also be different from other ciphersuites as long as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECVRF_encode_to_curve is collision resistant. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the ECVRF, the inputs to the ECVRF_encode_to_curve > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hash function used in producing H are then guaranteed to > be different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other ciphersuites; since all the other hashing > done by the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prover depends on H, inputs to all the hash functions > used by the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prover will also be different from other ciphersuites as > long as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECVRF_encode_to_curve is collision resistant. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] [DGKR18]: We see that < > https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/573> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists the title of this reference as "Ouroboros Praos: An > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptively-secure, semi-synchronous proof-of-stake > protocol", but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we click the "PDF" box on the page, the title of > the PDF version > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the paper has one word different ("protocol" vs. > "blockchain"): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ouroboros Praos: An adaptively-secure, semi-synchronous > proof-of-stake > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blockchain". How should the title be updated in this > reference? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [DGKR18] David, B., Gazi, P., Kiayias, A., and A. > Russell, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ouroboros Praos: An adaptively-secure, > semi-synchronous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof-of-stake protocol", in Advances in > Cryptology - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EUROCRYPT, 2018, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/573>. > --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] [GNPRVZ15]: This listing is the only " > eprint.iacr.org" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listing to provide a direct link to the PDF copy. > Should all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "eprint.iacr.org" URLs in this document be updated to > point to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the PDF copy, or should the ".pdf" be removed from this > link? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [GNPRVZ15] Goldberg, S., Naor, M., Papadopoulos, D., > Reyzin, L., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vasant, S., and A. Ziv, "NSEC5: Provably > Preventing DNSSEC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zone Enumeration", in NDSS, 2015, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/582.pdf>. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] [X25519]: We see that the provided URL > resolves to what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be a personal website. Please confirm that > this page is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stable and will continue to be available to readers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [X25519] Bernstein, D.J., "How do I validate > Curve25519 public > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keys?", 2006, <https://cr.yp.to/ecdh.html#validate>. > --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" > portion of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> online Style Guide at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < > 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. --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are > needed for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently > in this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID / "INVALID" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., 'may output INVALID', 'output "INVALID" and stop') > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VALID / "VALID" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., '(VALID, beta1)', '("VALID", beta_string)') > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) As ptLen is defined as "length, in octets, of a point > on E", it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears that ptLen would be pronounced as either > "pee-tee-len" or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "point-len". We changed the two instances of "an ptLen" > to "a ptLen" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. Please let us know any concerns. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c) Should spacing be made consistent for the following? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ctr = 1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ctr=1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ctr, 1) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ctr,1) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that in the context of "ctr" the use of > spaces between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries appears to be more common; we suggest adding > spaces > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for these items (e.g., ctr = 1, (ctr, 1)). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2^(8qLen)>q > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2^qlen > q > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d) Last paragraph of Section 5.4.5: For consistency, > should numerals > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or spelled-out numbers be used for the following? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 bad points > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two bad points > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (If the spelled-out "eight" is preferred, we will also > change > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "5 list elements" to "five list elements".) --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb/ar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 2023, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated 2023/04/17 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9381.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-rfcdiff.html > (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This diff file compares an altered original and the RFC > (in order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the changes in the moved "Contributors" > viewable): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-alt-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9381-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are > here: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9381 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb/ar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC9381 (draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-15) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Title : Verifiable Random Functions (VRFs) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author(s) : S. Goldberg, L. Reyzin, D. > Papadopoulos, J. Včelák > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rfc9381.xml> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rfc9381.xml> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>> Sharon Goldberg > >>>>>>>>>>> Computer Science, Boston University > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> Sharon Goldberg > >>>>>>>> Computer Science, Boston University > >>>>>>>> http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- --- Sharon Goldberg Computer Science, Boston University http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-cfrg-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Jan Včelák
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Sharon Goldberg
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Jan Včelák
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Christopher Wood
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Sharon Goldberg
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-c… Tim Taubert
- [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 (was… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Christopher Wood
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Tim Taubert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Lynne Bartholomew
- [auth48] [ISE] Re: AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] [ISE] Re: AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381… Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [auth48] [ISE] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] [ISE] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and… Sharon Goldberg
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Jan Včelák
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Leonid Reyzin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 … Sandy Ginoza