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

[Смышляев Станислав Вита льевич <[e-mail]>]

Thank you so much, Sandy!

Best regards,
Stanislav

> 
> On 15 Feb 2023, at 19:40, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> Thank you for your quick reviews and replies.  We have noted each of your approvals on the AUTH48 page <http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9367>.  We have received all of the needed approvals, so we will continue with publication shortly.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2023, at 2:12 AM, Екатерина Сергеевна <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Sandy,
>> 
>> I approve the document. 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Griboedova Ekaterina,
>> 
>> Ср, 15 февр. 2023 г. в 12:50, Бабуева Александра Алексеевна <[e-mail]>:
>> Dear Sandy,
>> 
>> I approve the document. 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Alexandra Babueva,
>> CryptoPro LLC
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Никифорова Лидия Олеговна <[e-mail]> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 12:40 PM
>> To: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; Алексеев Евгений Константинович <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Бабуева Александра Алексеевна <[e-mail]>; Rfc Ise <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review
>> 
>> Dear Sandy,
>> 
>> I approve the document. Thank you!
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Lidiia Nikiforova,
>> CryptoPro LLC
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:42 PM
>> To: Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <svs=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; Алексеев Евгений Константинович <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Бабуева Александра Алексеевна <[e-mail]>; Никифорова Лидия Олеговна <[e-mail]>; Rfc Ise <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review
>> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> One additional note: please ignore the updated URLs in the references for the RFC entries.  This is an error with the citation library and will be reverted before publication.  We have filed a bug ticket; see https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/339.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/sg
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Feb 14, 2023, at 9:37 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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-4Q9l2USx
>>>> IAe6P8O4Zc
>>>> 
>>>>   *  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>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>