[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9964 <draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-11> for your review

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Hi Orie and Michael, 

Thank you for your quick replies! 

We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9964)

Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We will start preparing this document for publication.

Best,
Madison Church
RFC Production Center

> On May 11, 2026, at 1:43 PM, Michael Prorock <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I approve this as ready for publication.
> 
> - Mike Prorock
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:27 AM Orie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I approve the document as ready for publication. Thank you editors!
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 9:40 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Authors,
> 
> This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you regarding this document’s readiness for publication.  
> 
> Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9964) for further information and the previous messages in this thread for updates to this document.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Madison Church
> RFC Production Center
> 
> > On May 4, 2026, at 3:40 PM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Orie,
> > 
> > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your response. Please see below for followup notes. 
> > 
> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] We recommend adding bullets to clarify "additional 
> >> constraints".  We expected a list because the text is introduced with a 
> >> colon, and it is unclear where each constraint starts and ends.  While 
> >> likely incorrect, we created this file to show what a bulleted list could 
> >> look like; see section 5 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964ul.html#section-5>.  
> >> -->
> >> 
> >> Looks good to me.
> > 
> > [rfced] We have updated this text according to <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964ul.html#section-5>. Please review and let us know if any further changes are needed.
> > 
> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 extend well beyond the 
> >> 72-character limit.  Please review and provide updated figures with 
> >> corrected line breaks.
> >> -->
> >> 
> >> Hopefully this PR with an AI corrected update is acceptable:
> >> 
> >> https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium/pull/28/changes/5d860efe0146aa0dbf270e58dcf6aee342bd9e56
> >> 
> >> If you need additional text to explain the line wrap, see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7520#section-1.1
> >> 
> >> Let me know if you need more for this.
> > 
> > [rfced] This is very helpful, thank you! We’ve updated the figures according to the PR. Please let us know if the line wrapping appears as desired.
> > 
> > Aside from the two items above, we have no further questions at this time. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> > 
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.txt
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.xml
> > 
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > 
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9964
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Madison Church
> > RFC Production Center
> > 
> >> 
> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first 
> >> use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> >> -->
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
> >> online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let
> >> us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically result in
> >> more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Specifically, please
> >> consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity.  
> >> While the NIST website
> >>  <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
> >> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  
> >> "Traditional" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> >> -->
> >> 
> >> Let's stick with the traditional per:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9794/ 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thank you.
> >> 
> >> Madison Church and Sandy Ginoza
> >> RFC Production Center
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Apr 27, 2026, at 4:20 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> 
> >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >> 
> >> Updated 2026/04/27
> >> 
> >> 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/rfc9964.xml
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.pdf
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964.txt
> >> 
> >> Diff file of the text:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-diff.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >> 
> >> Diff of the XML: 
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9964-xmldiff1.html
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Tracking progress
> >> -----------------
> >> 
> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9964
> >> 
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> >> 
> >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >> 
> >> RFC Editor
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC 9964 (draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-11)
> >> 
> >> Title            : ML-DSA for JOSE and COSE
> >> Author(s)        : M. Prorock, O. Steele
> >> WG Chair(s)      : Ivaylo Petrov, Michael B. Jones
> >> 
> >> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio
>