Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> 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] FYI, to match usage in [RFC9528], we have updated
"static-ephemeral" to "ephemeral-static" for consistency. Please let us
know if this is not accurate.

Original:
   The endpoints use NIST P-256 [SP-800-186] for
   both ephemeral-ephemeral and static-ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key
   exchange.

Current:
   The endpoints use NIST P-256 [SP-800-186] for
   both ephemeral-ephemeral and ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman key
   exchange.
-->      


3) <!--[rfced] The following lines are not complete sentences. Please
review and let us know if/how they should be updated.

Original (Section 3.4):
   The Responder's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair:

Original (Section 3.5):
   The Initiator's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair:
-->


4) <!--[rfced] In Sections 2.2, 2.5, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 3.9, it seems there 
are extraneous equals signs. Please review. For example, should the 
second equals sign on the PRK_exporter line and PRK_out line 
be removed (see c and d below)?

a) Original: 
   PRK_2e = EDHOC_Extract( salt, G_XY ) =
          = HMAC-SHA-256( salt, G_XY )

Perhaps:
   PRK_2e = EDHOC_Extract( salt, G_XY )
          = HMAC-SHA-256( salt, G_XY )

b) Original: (appears in Sections 2.2 and 3.4)

   KEYSTREAM_2 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_2e, 0, TH_2, plaintext_length ) =
               = HKDF-Expand( PRK_2e, info, plaintext_length )

Perhaps:
   KEYSTREAM_2 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_2e, 0, TH_2, plaintext_length )
	       = HKDF-Expand( PRK_2e, info, plaintext_length )

c) Original: (appears in 3.7 and 3.9)

PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length ) =
             = HKDF-Expand( PRK_out, info,  hash_length )

Perhaps:
PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length )
             = HKDF-Expand( PRK_out, info,  hash_length )


d) Original: (appears in 2.5 and 3.7)

PRK_out = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 7, TH_4, hash_length ) =
        = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info,  hash_length )

Perhaps:
PRK_out = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 7, TH_4, hash_length )
        = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info,  hash_length )


e) Original:
   OSCORE Master Secret =
   = HKDF-Expand(PRK_exporter, info, oscore_key_length)

Perhaps:
  OSCORE Master Secret
  = HKDF-Expand(PRK_exporter, info, oscore_key_length)

f) See more examples in Section 3.5: SALT_4e3m and PRK_4e3m 
-->


5) <!--[rfced] The first lines of Sections 4.1.1-4.1.7, 4.2.1-4.2.6, 4.3.1,
and 4.3.2 are not complete sentences. Please review these instances and 
let us know how they  may be updated.
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Citations

a) Section 4.1.2 - "0e" is not mentioned in Section 3.3.2 of RFC 9528.
(Please refer to https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9528.html or 
the other formats.) Please review and let us know if/how the citation 
may be updated.

Original:
   Correct encoding is 0e
   according to Section 3.3.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].

b) Section 4.1.3 - "02" is not mentioned in Section 5.2.2 of RFC 9528.
Please review and let us know if/how the citation may be updated.

Original:
   Correct encoding is 02
   according to Section 5.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].

c) Section 4.1.5 - "correct number of elements" is not mentioned in
Section 5.3.1 of RFC 9528. Please review and let us know if/how this
citation may be updated.

Original:
   Correct number of
   elements is 1 according to Section 5.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].

d) Section 4.2.2 - "x < p" is not mentioned in Section 9.2 of RFC 9528.
Please let us know if/how this citation may be updated.

Original:
   Requirement that x < p
   according to Section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and Section 5.6.2.3
   of [SP-800-56A].

e) Section 4.2.3 - "y^2 ≡ x^3 + a ⋅ x + b (mod p)" is not mentioned in
Section 9.2 of RFC 9528. Please let us know if/how this citation may be
updated.

Original:
   Requirement that y^2 ≡ x^3 + a ⋅ x + b (mod p)
   according to Section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and Section 5.6.2.3
   of [SP-800-56A].

f) Section 4.2.6 - "leading zeros" is not mentioned in Section 3.7 of
RFC 9528. Please review and let us know if/how this citation may be
updated.

Original:
   Correct encoding is with
   leading zeros according to Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and
   Section 7.1.1 of [RFC9053].

g) Section 4.3.2 - "82 06 02" is not mentioned in Section 5.2.2 of RFC 9528.
Please review and let us know if/how this citation may be updated.

Original:
   Correct encoding is 82 06 02 according to Section 5.2.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].
-->  


7) <!--[rfced] The first paragraphs of Sections 4.2.2  and 4.2.3 are made up of
incomplete sentences. Please review and let us know how they may be updated.

Original (Section 4.2.2):
   Invalid x-coordinate in G_X as x ≥ p.  Requirement that x < p
   according to Section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and Section 5.6.2.3
   of [SP-800-56A].

Original (Section 4.2.3):
   Invalid x-coordinate in (G_X) not corresponding to a point on the
   P-256 curve.  Requirement that y^2 ≡ x^3 + a ⋅ x + b (mod p)
   according to Section 9.2 of [RFC9528] and Section 5.6.2.3
   of [SP-800-56A].
-->   


8) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update this sentence as follows?

Original:
   Correct is the
   deterministic encoding 03 according to Section 3.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949], which states
   that the arguments for integers, lengths in major types 2 through 5,
   and tags are required to be as short as possible.

Perhaps:
   The deterministic encoding 03 is correct according to Section 3.1 of
   [RFC9528] and Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949], which states that the
   arguments for integers, lengths in major types 2 through 5, and tags
   are required to be as short as possible.
-->   


9) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have moved one name in order to alphabetize 
the names in the Acknowledgments because that seemed to have been 
your intention. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD)
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
Diffie-Hellman (DH)
Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH)
Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
Message Authentication Code (MAC)
Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
-->


11) <!-- [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 "master" should be updated.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/ar


On Feb 29, 2024, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/02/29

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/rfc9529.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-xmldiff1.html


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9529

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9529 (draft-ietf-lake-traces-09)

Title            : Traces of EDHOC
Author(s)        : G. Selander, J. Mattsson, M. Serafin, M. Tiloca, M. Vučinić
WG Chair(s)      : Mališa Vučinić, Stephen Farrell
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters