[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9980 <draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17> for your review

[[e-mail]]

All,

*AD - please review question #8 below.  Please note also that we assume AD approval of the change between versions -16 and -17 as it was submitted by Paul.

Authors - While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.

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


2) <!--[rfced] This sentence is difficult to parse please rephrase (and
     perhaps consider breaking up into multiple sentences).

Original:
Namely, these are ML-KEM [FIPS-203] as a Key Encapsulation Mechanism
(KEM), a KEM being a modern building block for public key encryption,
and ML-DSA [FIPS-204] as well as SLH-DSA [FIPS-205] as signature
schemes.

-->


3) <!--[rfced] Would it make sense to include the following sentences
     from the subsections of 5.1 and Section 6 in the Terminology
     section?

Original:
   Throughout this specification EdDSA refers to the PureEdDSA variant
   defined in [RFC8032].

Original:
   Throughout this specification ML-DSA refers to the default pure and
   hedged version of ML-DSA defined in [FIPS-204].

Original:
   Throughout this specification SLH-DSA refers to the default pure and
   hedged version of SLH-DSA defined in [FIPS-205].

-->


4) <!--[rfced] How may we rephrase to avoid the stacked "in the case"?
     Perhaps breaking this sentence up would be helpful?

Original:
Note that like in the case of the algorithms X25519 and X448
specified in [RFC9580], for the ML-KEM composite schemes, in the case
of a v3 PKESK packet, the symmetric algorithm identifier is not
encrypted. 
-->


5) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the table in the
IANA Considerations section:

a) The table of IANA values is very difficult to read and, now that
some edits have been made to the text, exceed our 72-character line
length limit.

We suggest updating to a definitions list for readability.  This
update would appear as seen here:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980alt.txt

b) We see links to specific tables in the various "Format" columns.
Please review as ID 30 (for example) mentions Tables 6 and 7 (which
are in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, respectively), while the Reference
column is pointing to Section 5.2.  If this is not as expected, please
review each entry and let us know if/how to update.

c) Please note that we will communicate any updates we've made to the
text in the IANA table to IANA for corresponding updates at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/openpgp/openpgp.xhtml#openpgp-public-key-algorithms once AUTH48 completes (and the text is stable).


-->


6) <!-- [rfced] [NIST-PQC] Please review. The date provided for this
     reference does not match any of the dates provided at this
     reference's URL. At the bottom of the page the dates listed are 
     "Created January 03, 2017, Updated December 11, 2025".

Also, the authors used in this reference entry are not listed on this
page (with the exception of Dustin Moody who is listed in the
"Contacts" section).

Is there another page this reference was meant to point to?

If this is the correct URL we recommend the following update:


Current:
   [NIST-PQC] Chen, L., Moody, D., and Y. Liu, "Post-Quantum Cryptography
   Standardization", December 2016,
   <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/post-quantum-cryptography-standardization>.

Perhaps:
   [NIST-PQC] NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization", December 2025,
   <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/post-quantum-cryptography-standardization>.

-->


7) <!-- [rfced] [NISTIR-8413] FYI: We've updated the date for this
reference from September 2022 to July 2022. Note that the version from
September was withdrawn and replaced by an updated version in July
2022: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2022/NIST.IR.8413.pdf. We
also updated the series number from "NIST IR 8413" to "NIST IR
8413-upd1". -->


8) <!--[rfced] [AD] The authors submitted a query about possible downrefs suggested by IDNITs (see list below).  This is not generally something the RPC advises on.  Upon conference between AD and authors, please let us know if any updates/changes are necessary.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  - Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-203'

  - Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-204'

  - Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-205'

  - Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-OPENPGP'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3394

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032

>From the authors: "We listed those references as normative as they
contain the algorithmic specifications needed.

We would appreciate guidance from the RFC Editor Team if this should
be handled differently."

-->


9) <!--[rfced] Please have a look at the line wrap issue in Appendix A.4.3.  Now that the text is in <tt> to format it as fixed width, it seems not to be able to wrap to fit within the 72-character limit.-->


10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to
     abbreviation use throughout the document:

a) We have expanded abbreviations on first use.  Please review these
expansions for accuracy.

b) The document expands MLWE as "Learning with Errors problem in
module lattices (MLWE)".  We believe the abbreviation stands for
"Module Learning with Errors".  Please let us know if/how to update.

c) We have updated the expansion of SEIPD to match RFC 9580.  Please
let us know any objections.

Original:
Symmetrically Encrypted and Integrity Protected Data

Current:
Symmetrically Encrypted Integrity Protected Data

d) We see PK and SK are introduced in Section 6.1, but are not used
elsewhere in the text.  Would you like to introduce them sooner and
use them throughout?  Or perhaps remove them from Section 6.1?
-->


11) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments about terminology use throughout the document:

a) We see both algorithm ID and Algorithm ID.  Please let us know if/how these should be made uniform.

b) Please review the list of terms that appear in <tt> (for special
marking) for consistency and let us know if any updates are necessary.
You can find the list at:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17ttsorted.txt 

-->


12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.

In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity.  
While the NIST website 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.

-->


Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center


*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2026/05/08

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/rfc9980.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9980-xmldiff1.html


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9980

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9980 (draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17)

Title            : Post-Quantum Cryptography in OpenPGP
Author(s)        : S. Kousidis, J. Roth, F. Strenzke, A. Wussler
WG Chair(s)      : Stephen Farrell, Daniel Kahn Gillmor

Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio