Re: [auth48] AUTH48 for RFCs-to-be 9381 and 9383 (was "Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9381 <draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-15> for your review")

[Tim Taubert <[e-mail]>]

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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>