Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9496 <draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC 5743
have been adhered to in this document.  See
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5743.html#section-2.1.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please consider including a reference for "Discrete Log Hardness".
We do not see this phrase in RFCs and we did not find directly matching hits via
our general searches.  Is this the same as the "hardness of the discrete logarithm
problem"?  

Original:
   This means the group has a cofactor
   of 1, and all elements are equivalent from the perspective of
   Discrete Log Hardness.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following for readability.  Please review to
ensure we have not altered the meaning. 

Original:
   Edwards curves provide a number of implementation benefits for
   cryptography, such as complete addition formulas with no exceptional
   points and formulas among the fastest known for curve operations.

Current:
   Edwards curves provide a number of implementation benefits for
   cryptography, such as complete addition formulas with no exceptional
   points and formulas known to be among the fastest for curve
   operations.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Is "hash_to_curve" considered an algorithm? RFC 9380 refers to
it as an encoding function. 

Original:
   In some contexts this property would be a weakness, but it is
   important in some contexts: in particular, it means that a
   combination of a cryptographic hash function and the element
   derivation function is suitable for use in algorithms such as
   hash_to_curve [draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve-16].
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] To what does "its" refer in the last sentence? 

Original (the paragraph is provided for context):
   Since ristretto255 is a prime-order group, every element except the
   identity is a generator, but for interoperability a canonical
   generator is selected, which can be internally represented by the
   Curve25519 basepoint, enabling reuse of existing precomputation for
   scalar multiplication.  This is its encoding as produced by the
   function specified in Section 4.3.2:
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] May we change "reflect" to "note" here? 

Original: 
   Implementations SHOULD reflect that: the
   type representing an element of the group SHOULD be opaque to the
   caller, meaning they do not expose the underlying curve point or
   field elements.

Suggested:
   Implementations SHOULD note that the
   type representing an element of the group SHOULD be opaque to the
   caller, meaning they do not expose the underlying curve point or
   field elements. 
-->


8) <!--[rfced] May we clarify "allowed operations" as follows?

Original:
   The decoding
   function always returns a valid internal representation, or an error,
   and allowed operations on valid internal representations return valid
   internal representations.

Perhaps:
   The decoding
   function always returns a valid internal representation, or an error,
   and operations that are allowed on valid internal representations return valid
   internal representations.
-->   


9) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have alphabetized the references. Please let us know
of any objections.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] The sourcecode in Appendices A.1, A.2, and A.3 extend
beyond the 69-character margin.  Please let us know how the lines may
be broken.  
-->


11) <!-- [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).
-->


12) <!-- [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.

For example, please consider whether "whitespace" should be updated.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/sg/ap


On Oct 13, 2023, at 4:46 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/13

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/rfc9496.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9496

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9496 (draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08)

Title            : The ristretto255 and decaf448 Groups
Author(s)        : H. Valence, J. Grigg, M. Hamburg, I. Lovecruft, G. Tankersley, F. Valsorda
WG Chair(s)      : 
Area Director(s) :