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")

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you Lynne! I also approve publication of RFC 9383.
>>>> 
>>>> — Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 17, 2023, at 00:04, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, Lynne. I approve publication of RFC9383.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:19 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Capitalized is fine to me as well. Thanks!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> — Tim
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 16. Aug 2023, at 02:48, Leonid Reyzin <[e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] instead of @bu?
>>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2023, at 3:55 PM, Sharon Goldberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree with Chris. Go with capitals.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Sharon
>>>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2023, at 1:53 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, I approve this as well.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:05 AM Dimitrios Papadopoulos <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the detailed editing.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I also approve its publication.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Dimitris
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 May 2023, at 11:52 PM, Leonid Reyzin <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jan.  Thank you for checking in with us!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Jan Včelák <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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, [e-mail] 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, [e-mail] 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *  [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/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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>