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

[Никифорова Лидия Олегов на <[e-mail]>]

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,
Lidiia Nikiforova,
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-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/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) :