Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Authors and Paul*,

*Paul - As the AD, please review and approve of the following updates:

-Section 1.1: deleted text
-Section 2.7: added text
-Sections 3.4 and 3.5: added text
-Section 3.9: added and updated text
-Sections 4.1.2-4.1.7: updated text

The changes can be seen in the following diff:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-ad-diff.html

Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files with Marco’s suggested updates and noted Marco’s and Mališa’s approvals on the AUTH48 status page:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9529

Please note that we have some follow-up queries/comments. 

) With the most recent updates, the following line, which appears in Sections 2.7 and 3.9, now exceeds the 72-character limit by 2 characters. Please review and let us know how these lines may be updated to fit within the character limit:

Current:
OSCORE Master Salt = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, oscore_salt_length )


) We have not made any changes in the Acknowledgments section. The names are currently listed in alphabetical order by last name. 
...
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.xml
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529.pdf

The relevant diff files have been posted here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9529-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

Thank you, 
RFC Editor/ap


> On Mar 11, 2024, at 7:23 AM, Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear RFC Editor,
> 
> I approve the publication of this document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mališa
> 
>> On Mar 11, 2024, at 09:39, Göran Selander <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>>  I reviewed Marco’s changes and they all look fine to me, some good catches.  Two remarks:
>>  
>>     • I don’t think upper or lower case for hex strings matters.
>>  
>>     • The text between the printouts in 2.7 and 3.9 could be verbatim the same, which they aren’t even after Marco’s  good changes, but that doesn’t matter either.
>>  Thanks,
>> Göran
>>  From: Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Sunday, 10 March 2024 at 19:48
>> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>, Göran Selander <[e-mail]>, John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> for your review
>> Dear RFC Editor,
>> 
>> I have reviewed the document, including the changes following John's and Göran's review.
>> 
>> Please see below some comments from my side.
>> 
>> Besides that, I approve this publication.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> /Marco
>> 
>> 
>> * Section 2.1
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Connection identifier chosen by Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Connection identifier chosen by the Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> (2 instances)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.2
>> 
>> To be consistent with the use of "represented by" in Sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> The Responder selects its connection identifier C_R to be the byte string 0x18, which is encoded as h'18' = 0x4118 since it is not represented as a 1-byte CBOR int:
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> The Responder selects its connection identifier C_R to be the byte string 0x18, which is encoded as h'18' = 0x4118 since it is not represented by a 1-byte CBOR int:
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.2
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Connection identifier chosen by Responder
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Connection identifier chosen by the Responder
>> 
>> 
>> (2 instances)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.4
>> 
>> OLD:
>>     = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info, key_length )
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>>     = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info, key_length )
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.4
>> 
>> OLD:
>>      = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info, iv_length )
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>>      = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info, iv_length )
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.5
>> 
>> To be consistent with the definition in Section 4.2.1 of RFC 9528:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> EDHOC_Exporter( label, context, length )
>> = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_exporter, label, context, length )
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> EDHOC_Exporter( exporter_label, context, length )
>> = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_exporter, exporter_label, context, length )
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.6
>> 
>> OLD:
>> = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info, oscore_salt_length )
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, oscore_salt_length )
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.7
>> 
>> OLD:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> 
>> where info for KeyUpdate is:
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> 
>> context for KeyUpdate (CBOR Data Item) (17 bytes)
>> 50 d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> 
>> where info for KeyUpdate is:
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.7
>> 
>> OLD:
>> where info and key_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> where info and oscore_key_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 2.7
>> 
>> OLD:
>> OSCORE Master Salt = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, salt_length )
>> 
>> where info and salt_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> OSCORE Master Salt = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, oscore_salt_length )
>> 
>> where info and oscore_salt_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.1
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Connection identifier chosen by Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Connection identifier chosen by the Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> (2 instances)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.3
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Connection identifier chosen by Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Connection identifier chosen by the Initiator
>> 
>> 
>> (2 instances)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.4
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Connection identifier chosen by Responder
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Connection identifier chosen by the Responder
>> 
>> 
>> (2 instances)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.4
>> 
>> For consistency with using lowercase letters in hexadecimal notation:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> {                                              /CCS/
>>   2 : "example.edu",                           /sub/
>>   8 : {                                        /cnf/
>>     1 : {                                      /COSE_Key/
>>       1 : 2,                                   /kty/
>>       2 : h'32',                               /kid/
>>      -1 : 1,                                   /crv/
>>      -2 : h'BBC34960526EA4D32E940CAD2A234148
>>             DDC21791A12AFBCBAC93622046DD44F0', /x/
>>      -3 : h'4519E257236B2A0CE2023F0931F1F386
>>             CA7AFDA64FCDE0108C224C51EABF6072'  /y/
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> {                                              /CCS/
>>   2 : "example.edu",                           /sub/
>>   8 : {                                        /cnf/
>>     1 : {                                      /COSE_Key/
>>       1 : 2,                                   /kty/
>>       2 : h'32',                               /kid/
>>      -1 : 1,                                   /crv/
>>      -2 : h'bbc34960526ea4d32e940cad2a234148
>>             ddc21791a12afbcbac93622046dd44f0', /x/
>>      -3 : h'4519e257236b2a0ce2023f0931f1f386
>>             ca7afda64fcde0108c224c51eabf6072'  /y/
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.5
>> 
>> For consistency with using lowercase letters in hexadecimal notation:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> {                                              /CCS/
>>   2 : "42-50-31-FF-EF-37-32-39",               /sub/
>>   8 : {                                        /cnf/
>>     1 : {                                      /COSE_Key/
>>       1 : 2,                                   /kty/
>>       2 : h'2b',                               /kid/
>>      -1 : 1,                                   /crv/
>>      -2 : h'AC75E9ECE3E50BFC8ED6039988952240
>>             5C47BF16DF96660A41298CB4307F7EB6'  /x/
>>      -3 : h'6E5DE611388A4B8A8211334AC7D37ECB
>>             52A387D257E6DB3C2A93DF21FF3AFFC8'  /y/
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> {                                              /CCS/
>>   2 : "42-50-31-FF-EF-37-32-39",               /sub/
>>   8 : {                                        /cnf/
>>     1 : {                                      /COSE_Key/
>>       1 : 2,                                   /kty/
>>       2 : h'2b',                               /kid/
>>      -1 : 1,                                   /crv/
>>      -2 : h'ac75e9ece3e50bfc8ed6039988952240
>>             5c47bf16df96660a41298cb4307f7eb6'  /x/
>>      -3 : h'6e5de611388a4b8a8211334ac7d37ecb
>>             52a387d257e6db3c2a93df21ff3affc8'  /y/
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.7
>> 
>> To be consistent with the definition in Section 4.2.1 of RFC 9528:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> EDHOC_Exporter( label, context, length )
>> = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_exporter, label, context, length )
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> EDHOC_Exporter( exporter_label, context, length )
>> = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_exporter, exporter_label, context, length )
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.9
>> 
>> OLD:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> 
>> and where info for the KeyUpdate is:
>> 
>> context for KeyUpdate (CBOR Data Item) (17 bytes)
>> 50 a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> 
>> and where info for the key update is:
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> 
>> context for KeyUpdate (CBOR Data Item) (17 bytes)
>> 50 a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> 
>> and where info for the key update is:
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.9
>> 
>> OLD:
>> where info and key_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> where info and oscore_key_length are unchanged as in Section 3.8.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 3.9
>> 
>> OLD:
>> OSCORE Master Salt = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, salt_length )
>> 
>> where info and salt_length are unchanged as in Section 2.6.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> OSCORE Master Salt = HKDF-Expand( PRK_exporter, info, oscore_salt_length )
>> 
>> where info and oscore_salt_length are unchanged as in Section 3.8.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 4
>> 
>> OLD:
>> This is just a small set of examples of different reasons a message might be invalid. The same types of invalidities applies to other fields and messages as well.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> This is just a small set of examples of different reasons for which a message might be invalid. The same types of invalidities apply to other fields and messages as well.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 4.2.3
>> 
>> To be consistent with "The x-coordinate in G_X is invalid ..." used in Section 4.2.2:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> The x-coordinate in (G_X) is invalid as it does not correspond to a point on the P-256 curve.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> The x-coordinate in G_X is invalid as it does not correspond to a point on the P-256 curve.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section 4.3.2
>> 
>> OLD:
>> The element SUITES_I = [6, 2] is incorrectly encoded as an indefinite-length array. The correct encoding is the definite-length array 82 06 02 according to Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949], which is referenced in Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9528].
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> The element SUITES_I = [6, 2] is incorrectly encoded as an indefinite-length array. The correct encoding is the definite-length array 82 06 02 according to Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949], which is referenced in Section 3.1 of [RFC9528].
>> 
>> 
>> (in Section 5.2.2 of RFC 9528, there is no reference to Section 4.2.1 of RFC 8949; that reference is instead provided in Section 3.1 of RFC 9528, which sets the general expectation on using deterministically encoded CBOR)
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section "Acknowledgments"
>> 
>> To ensure that people are listed in alphabetical order by last name, Rikard Höglund and Stefan Hristozov should be swapped:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> The authors want to thank all people verifying EDHOC test vectors and/or contributing to the interoperability testing, including: Christian Amsüss, Timothy Claeys, Rikard Höglund, Stefan Hristozov, Christos Koulamas, Francesca Palombini, Lidia Pocero, Peter van der Stok, and Michel Veillette.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> The authors want to thank all people verifying EDHOC test vectors and/or contributing to the interoperability testing, including: Christian Amsüss, Timothy Claeys, Stefan Hristozov, Rikard Höglund, Christos Koulamas, Francesca Palombini, Lidia Pocero, Peter van der Stok, and Michel Veillette.
>> 
>> --------------------
>> 
>> * Section "Authors' Addresses"
>> 
>> Please update my contact information as follows:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Marco Tiloca
>> RISE
>> Sweden
>> Email: [e-mail]
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Marco Tiloca
>> RISE AB
>> Isafjordsgatan 22
>> 164 40 Kista
>> Sweden
>> Email: [e-mail]
>> 
>> 
>> On 2024-03-08 23:59, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>> [You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>  
>> Hi Göran and John,
>>  
>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files per your requests. Your approvals have been noted on the AUTH48 status page. We assume assent to changes from your coauthors unless we hear otherwise.
>>  
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191189309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zuJ5kQsEzlRv%2BCHoKxKjMlTkVJyur3mS98iDrjUGNaY%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191197701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m7iKpHXTMZH5YLN8rEQhD0cT2nd79RXG%2BK8g%2BaR7O50%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191203471%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2B3ok5hBIbR5LYuoKIhHGFnI1uLmjcvH%2F4h9oaaYvobg%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191207686%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1N6ECFTNl1H%2FVhQowaSjeNb6fcSZqWuqSx7FvMbp7ds%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191211753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F9Y%2FGtDHx5qoSsn23ZAohureR1AkXMyJwuvXewxVZB4%3D&reserved=0 (comprehensive diff)
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191215778%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=To5SysjL1z6Q63a4brCTGBpaogq8SF191lfaTu9G2bM%3D&reserved=0 (AUTH48 changes)
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191219776%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J14XAK07VQbFzoMVC9AZvSzI9a4oAovguTumpjhYtZw%3D&reserved=0 (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191223790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wyA6C3oceIvgY1zq%2B74BRQkBbQB0DO7f7eiANRfGtqU%3D&reserved=0 (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>>  
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9529&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191227807%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6kap4ZmedQGTvP8eWNDgrOXPzZf1KJMMHr%2BIuHYOYwI%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>>  
>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 7:47 AM, Göran Selander <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi,
>> I have reviewed the XML file provided by John in the mail below.
>> Here are some minor editorial changes:
>> Section 2.2
>> OLD
>> Message to be signed 2 (CBOR Data Item) (341 bytes)
>> NEW
>> Message to be signed in message_2 (CBOR Data Item) (341 bytes)
>>   Section 2.3
>> OLD
>> Message to be signed 3 (CBOR Data Item) (341 bytes)
>> NEW
>> Message to be signed in message_3 (CBOR Data Item) (341 bytes)
>>   Section 4.1.4
>> OLD
>> The third element (G_X) is incorrectly encoded as a text string. The correct encoding is a byte string according to Section 5.2.1 of [RFC9528].
>> NEW
>> The third element of message_1 (G_X) is incorrectly encoded as a text string. The correct encoding is a byte string according to Section 5.2.1 of [RFC9528].
>> Section 4.15
>> OLD
>> The CBOR sequence has an incorrect number of elements. The correct number of elements in the CBOR sequence is 1 according to Section 5.3.1 of [RFC9528].
>> NEW
>> The CBOR sequence in message_2 has an incorrect number of elements. The correct number of elements in the CBOR sequence is 1 according to Section 5.3.1 of [RFC9528].
>>   I approve publication.
>> Göran
>> From: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, 7 March 2024 at 22:29
>> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Göran Selander <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> for your review
>> Thanks Alanna,
>>  
>> Attached is an XML file with minor editorial formatting chances:
>>  
>> - 0, 1, or 2 spaces indent were used in the diagnostic notation.
>> I aligned everything to 2 spaces, this aligns with RFC 9528
>> - One line of hexadecimal numbers where too long.
>> - Inconsistent use of space around arguments in functions like HKDF-Expand()
>> - Removed one remaining double =
>> - Removed a tab character that cause an extra empty line.
>> - Aligned use of end comma in diagnostic notation. Removed one comma.
>> - Aligned use of comma after equation before where. Removed several.
>> I approve publication.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> John Preuß Mattsson
>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, 7 March 2024 at 20:28
>> To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Göran Selander <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> for your review
>> Hi John and Paul*,
>>  
>> *Paul - As the AD, please review and approve of the following updates:
>>  
>> -Section 1.1: deleted text
>> -Section 2.7: updated text
>> -Sections 3.4 and 3.5: added text
>> -Section 3.9: added and updated text
>> -Sections 4.1.2-4.1.7: updated text
>>  
>> The changes can be seen in the following diff:
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-ad-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191231790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rkjVg18gQVPWaJdmoFs1%2F%2Bc4WVJuOq0X88KWovAKltY%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> John - Thank you for your replies.  We have updated as requested.
>>  
>> OLD:
>> When the protocol transporting EDHOC messages does not inherently provide correlation across all messages, like Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], then
>> NEW:
>> When the protocol transporting EDHOC messages does not inherently provide correlation across all messages, then
>> (It is incorrect that CoAP inherently provide correlation across all messages)
>>  
>> FYI: As the citation to RFC 7252 has been removed and it is not cited anywhere else in the document, we have removed its corresponding reference entry from the Informative References section.
>>  
>> ...
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191235866%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w02jIC1%2F81YCkYGP490FY5zl5iHXGDBidh5hI6amOvk%3D&reserved=0
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191239794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Iw8Tanc%2BI2cw2H%2Bamo%2FkFQUt2Ni5DGqJ15%2Bndt0fhAs%3D&reserved=0
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191243866%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XvisvePbCY%2BR9%2FR4BWsfe7Quq7eGu%2Bx73mmWyvEXjBU%3D&reserved=0
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191248105%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XnPoarbVQpOxjYVXnbog1WMdq7If9WSJcWpjVR%2B3IZs%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191252080%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MOuVSW4UKOR2EU4NXvR%2FjPBOHI69Kq1bZvY1vFP88Ss%3D&reserved=0 (comprehensive diff)
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191256046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lvfTwug7F20CSI3wyI6t%2FPx%2Fl%2F8i3c60LYxQ4x3b1gM%3D&reserved=0 (AUTH48 changes)
>>  
>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
>>  
>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>  
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9529&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191260047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iIeLmsHUYy%2B5gvVS50V4gvbWQmUEtPEVjdZ%2BMoUNevc%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>>  
>> On Mar 7, 2024, at 8:01 AM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi,
>> I have reviewed the whole document in detail. I have the following suggestions:
>> ------------------
>> OLD:This document contains some example
>> NEW:This document contains example
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> When the protocol transporting EDHOC messages does not inherently provide correlation across all messages, like Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], then
>> NEW:
>> When the protocol transporting EDHOC messages does not inherently provide correlation across all messages, then
>> (It is incorrect that CoAP inherently provide correlation across all messages)
>> ------------------
>> OLD: Authentication with Signatures, X.509 Certificates Identified by 'x5t'
>> NEW: Authentication with Signatures, X.509 Identified by 'x5t'
>> (To fit on one line and align with Section 3 title)
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> MAC_2 is computed through EDHOC_Expand() using the EDHOC hash
>>    algorithm (see Section 4.1.2 of [RFC9528]):
>>     [
>>    MAC_2 = HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, mac_length_2)
>>     where
>>      info = ( 2, context_2, mac_length_2 )
>> NEW:
>> MAC_2 is computed through EDHOC_Expand() using the EDHOC hash
>>    algorithm (see Section 4.1.2 of [RFC9528]):
>>     MAC_2 = HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, mac_length_2)
>>     where
>>     info = ( 2, context_2, mac_length_2 )
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> where
>>      info = ( 6, context_3, mac_length_3 )
>> NEW:
>> where
>>     info = ( 6, context_3, mac_length_3 )
>> ------------------
>> OLD: Crypto-Related Errors
>> NEW: Cryptography-Related Errors
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> K_4   = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 8, TH_4, key_length )
>>       = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info, key_length )
>> NEW:
>> K_4 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 8, TH_4, key_length )
>>     = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4e3m, info, key_length )
>> Same thing with
>> SALT_3e2m  =
>> SALT_4e3m  =
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length ) =
>>               = HKDF-Expand( PRK_out, info,  hash_length )
>> NEW:
>> PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length ) =
>>              = HKDF-Expand( PRK_out, info,  hash_length )
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> context for KeyUpdate (CBOR Data Item) (17 bytes)
>> 50 d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> where info for key update is:
>> info =
>> (
>> 11,
>> h'd6be169602b8bceaa01158fdb820890c',
>> 32
>> )
>> NEW:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c
>> where info for KeyUpdate is:
>> info =
>> (
>> 11,
>> h'd6be169602b8bceaa01158fdb820890c',
>> 32
>> )
>> info for KeyUpdate (CBOR Sequence) (20 bytes)
>> 0b 50 d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c 18 20
>> ------------------
>> OLD:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> context for KeyUpdate (CBOR Data Item) (17 bytes)
>> 50 a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> and where info for the key update is:
>> info =3.7
>> (
>> 11,
>> h'a01158fdb820890cd6be169602b8bcea',
>> 32
>> )
>> NEW:
>> context for KeyUpdate (Raw Value) (16 bytes)
>> a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea
>> and where info for the KeyUpdate is:
>> info =
>> (
>> 11,
>> h'a01158fdb820890cd6be169602b8bcea',
>> 32
>> )
>> info for KeyUpdate (CBOR Sequence) (20 bytes)
>> 0b 50 a0 11 58 fd b8 20 89 0c d6 be 16 96 02 b8 bc ea 18 20
>> ------------------
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> John Preuß Mattsson
>> From: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Tuesday, 5 March 2024 at 13:41
>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Göran Selander <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> for your review
>> Dear RFC Editor,
>> See answers to the questions inline.
>> Cheers,
>> John Prueß Mattsson
>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Friday, 1 March 2024 at 03:03
>> To: Göran Selander <[e-mail]>, John Mattsson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9529 <draft-ietf-lake-traces-09> 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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>> title) for use on https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191264036%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QnyTsWJAD2izZ9vw5whpH22QuB5ds8b4wXVsI8FEqDg%3D&reserved=0. -->
>> John: test vector, lightweight, authenticated key exchange, LAKE, AKE
>>  
>> 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.
>> -->
>>  
>> John: That is great.
>>  
>> 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:
>> -->
>>  
>> OLD: The Responder's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair:
>> NEW: The Responder's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair consist of a private key and a public key.
>> OLD: The Initiator's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair:
>> NEW: The Initiator's static Diffie-Hellman P-256 key pair consist of a private key and a public key.
>>  
>> 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
>> -->
>>  
>> John: Yes, please remove all the extraneous equals signs on the upper line.
>>  
>> 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.
>> -->
>> OLD: Invalid encoding of message_1 as array.
>> NEW: message_1 is incorrectly encoded as a CBOR array.
>> OLD: Invalid encoding 41 0e of C_I = 0x0e.
>> NEW: The connection identifier C_I = 0x0e is incorrectly encoded as the CBOR byte string 41 0e.
>> OLD: Invalid array encoding 81 02 of SUITES_I = 2
>> NEW: The element SUITES_I = 2 is incorrectly encoded as the CBOR array 81 02.
>> OLD: Invalid type of the third element (G_X). NEW: The third element (G_X) is incorrectly encoded as a text string.  OLD: Invalid number of elements in the CBOR sequence.
>> NEW: The CBOR sequence has an incorrect number of elements.
>> OLD: Invalid encoding a1 04 42 32 10 of ID_CRED_R in PLAINTEXT_2.
>> NEW: The element ID_CRED_R in PLAINTEXT_2 is incorrectly encoded as the map a1 04 42 32 10.
>> OLD: Invalid encoding 41 32 of ID_CRED_R in PLAINTEXT_2.
>> NEW: The element ID_CRED_R in PLAINTEXT_2 is incorrectly encoded as the byte string 41 32.
>> OLD: Invalid length of the third element (G_X).
>> NEW: The third element (G_X) has an invalid length.
>> OLD: Invalid x-coordinate in G_X as x ≥ p.
>> NEW: The x-coordinate in G_X is invalid as x ≥ p.
>> OLD: Invalid x-coordinate in (G_X) not corresponding to a point on the P-256 curve.
>> NEW: The x-coordinate in (G_X) is invalid as it does not correspond to a point on the P-256 curve.
>> OLD: Curve25519 point of low order which fails the check for all-zero output according to Section 9.2 of [RFC9528].
>> NEW: The Curve25519 point is invalid as it is of low order and fails the check for all-zero output according to Section 9.2 of [RFC9528].
>> OLD: Invalid length of third element (Signature_or_MAC_2).
>> NEW: The third element (Signature_or_MAC_2) has an invalid length.
>> OLD: Invalid encoding of third element (G_X).
>> NEW: The third element (G_X) is incorrectly encoded.
>> OLD: Invalid 16-bit encoding 19 00 03 of METHOD = 3.
>> NEW: The element METHOD = 3 is incorrectly encoded as an 16-bit integer.
>> OLD: Invalid indefinite-length array encoding 9F 06 02 FF of SUITES_I = [6, 2]. NEW: The element SUITES_I = [6, 2] is incorrectly encoded as an indefinite-length array.
>>  
>> 6) <!--[rfced] Citations
>>  
>> a) Section 4.1.2 - "0e" is not mentioned in Section 3.3.2 of RFC 9528.
>> (Please refer to https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9528.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191268034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sgDpUtBSVLxkWyYAEon1x1gMWXYywFiCUGAQ4H2meuk%3D&reserved=0 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].
>> NEW: The correct encoding is the integer 0e  according to Section 3.3.2 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> NEW: The correct encoding is the integer 02 according to Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> NEW: The  correct number of elements in the CBOR sequence is 1 according to Section 5.3.1 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> NEW: It is required that x < p according to Section 5.6.2.3 of [SP-800-56A], which is referenced in Section 9.2 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> NEW: It is required that y^2 ≡ x^3 + a ⋅ x + b (mod p) according to Section 5.6.2.3 of [SP-800-56A], which is referenced in Section 9.2 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> NEW: The correct encoding is with leading-zero octets according to Section 7.1.1 of [RFC9053], which is referenced in Section 3.7 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> -->  NEW: The correct encoding is the definite-length array 82 06 02 according to Section 4.2.1 of[RFC8949], which is referenced in Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9528].
>>  
>> 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].
>> -->
>>  
>> NEW: The x-coordinate in G_X is invalid as x ≥ p. It is required that x < p according to Section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] and Section 5.6.2.3 of [SP-800-56A].
>> NEW: The x-coordinate in (G_X) is invalid as it does not correspond to a point on the P-256 curve. It is required 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.
>> -->
>>  
>> John: Fine
>>  
>> 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.
>> -->
>> John: Fine
>>  
>> 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)
>> -->
>>  
>> John: Good
>>  
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>> online Style Guide
>> <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191272061%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TcMi2r18OayRoQKjW00Mais5pNZ1XOPri45egHBpJgs%3D&reserved=0>
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>  
>> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
>> -->
>>  
>> John: We have reviewed the “Inclusive Language” portion. “master” cannot be updated as it is the term used in RFC 8613.
>>  
>> 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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191276108%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=99D2NM3IrOJd4lGokYCxNpXYErd7fxhXPaEeHTXAny4%3D&reserved=0).
>>  
>> 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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191280002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N6SgFgHgxPYEUpuvifHQbgxOnRgLcbBhTmbmNQa6sH0%3D&reserved=0).
>>  
>> *  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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191283790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AsxtplpRTKNrGv8RlpondijhsO1qHT02cJtBxqfzyZ0%3D&reserved=0>.
>>  
>> *  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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191287555%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y35093WvArRnHSIHySO%2BdRAqpxWpVs21GJk3PFRzFI4%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>>     *  The archive itself:
>>        https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191291494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yrlULXvu6f84rSpHs2IWJbcU78qK0zhVrVdh%2FeqQTLY%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>>     *  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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191295037%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=llyj506fq0dMTBlxnm56m4KsOv4KxM04oNlAjAgotcw%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191299066%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dDqCNR9gpNbtzFpBDgyYOVlETTemIQIe2LFMXIiA32o%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191302974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HbBR%2FzZjmiCoOgbIbOXO8CFZok3Z800wbPmFa43xKG0%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191306994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Xr6u7nUcy%2FRy4Q3H0%2BHwmwIeVmO3TLOgJAz3pu%2BLUJU%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> Diff file of the text:
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191310894%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0LrtKHW%2FAwRC67KW91%2FrqsbduSvMl71Vvmyat2IaO80%3D&reserved=0
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191314831%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tQT8loNb%2BE2%2F8FyCdfQW1MElsWXw8gBaIVzo7UGj8oI%3D&reserved=0 (side by side)
>>  
>> Diff of the XML:
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9529-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191318786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rSTmilChz160LE5ZFOhW9nFkmODY5CTlkXeMmR%2BNGUE%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>>  
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>  
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>   https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9529&data=05%7C02%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C75aedc9f2a0f4166d10c08dc3fc3720f%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638455356191323104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k0iEnYKu0d0AsG2iyYfv2NnCG%2BL4CcS8wuxYgfuFD98%3D&reserved=0
>>  
>> 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
>>  
>> John: My last name is fine in the document but here it is chopped in half. My last name is “Preuß Mattsson” including the white space.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Marco Tiloca
>> Ph.D., Senior Researcher
>>  
>> Phone: [phone]
>>  
>> RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB
>> Box 1263
>> 164 29 Kista (Sweden)
>>  
>> Division: Digital Systems
>> Department: Computer Science
>> Unit: Cybersecurity
>>  
>> https://www.ri.se
>