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")

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Tim.  We have noted your approval:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9383

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Aug 17, 2023, at 5:44 PM, Tim Taubert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>