Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9563 <draft-cuiling-dnsop-sm2-alg-15> 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] May we set sortRefs to true so the references will appear 
in alphanumeric order? -->


2) <!-- [rfced] The abbreviated title includes "DNSS".  Please confirm this 
is correct, as we do not find instances of "DNSS" in the RFC Series.  

<title abbrev="SM2 Digital Signature Algorithm for DNSS">
-->


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


4) <!-- [rfced] The following artwork extends beyond the 72 character margin by 4 characters.  Please review and let us know how the lines may be broken.  

p  = FFFFFFFE FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF 00000000 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF
a  = FFFFFFFE FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF 00000000 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFC
b  = 28E9FA9E 9D9F5E34 4D5A9E4B CF6509A7 F39789F5 15AB8F92 DDBCBD41 4D940E93
xG = 32C4AE2C 1F198119 5F990446 6A39C994 8FE30BBF F2660BE1 715A4589 334C74C7
yG = BC3736A2 F4F6779C 59BDCEE3 6B692153 D0A9877C C62A4740 02DF32E5 2139F0A0
n  = FFFFFFFE FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF 7203DF6B 21C6052B 53BBF409 39D54123
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Does the "above algorithm" refer to the digital signature algorithm, and is this different from the digital signature generation algorithm?  

Original: 
   Conformant implementations that create records to be put into the DNS
   MAY implement signing and verification for the above algorithm.
   Conformant DNSSEC verifiers MAY implement verification for the above
   algorithm.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] It's unclear why some of the example text in Section 6 was 
formatted as a definition list <dl> and some as <artwork>.  We have 
combined the text into one <artwork> block.  However, we wonder whether 
this should be <sourcecode>, perhaps with type="dns-rr".  

The current list of preferred <sourcecode> values for "type" is available 
at https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt. If the 
current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest 
additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the 
"type" attribute not set.

Please review the output carefully and pay particular attention to line 
breaks and wrapping. 
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to verify the reference information at these 
locations, as the sites were timing out.  We will try again later.  Please 
let us know if there are other URLs that should be used. 

[GBT-32905-2016] http://www.gmbz.org.cn/upload/2018-07-24/1532401392982079739.pdf
[GBT-32918.1-2016] http://www.gmbz.org.cn/upload/2018-07-24/1532401673134070738.pdf
[GBT-32918.2-2016] http://www.gmbz.org.cn/upload/2018-07-24/1532401673138056311.pdf
-->


8) <!-- [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 Apr 12, 2024, at 4:08 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/04/12

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/rfc9563.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563-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/rfc9563.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9563.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9563

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9563 (draft-cuiling-dnsop-sm2-alg-15)

Title            : SM2 Digital Signature Algorithm for DNSSEC
Author(s)        : C. Zhang, Y. Liu, F. Leng, Q. Zhao, Z. He
WG Chair(s)      : 
Area Director(s) :