Re: [auth48] [irsg] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9496 <draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08> for your review

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the quick reply! We’ve noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9496).

A few notes:

1) 
>> Note that once you approve the changes, we will ask the document shepherd to approve updates that are above editorial.
> 
> Sounds good. I tried to only suggest changes that I considered editorial (and did not suggest some good changes that I felt would be above editorial), but I can appreciate you having a more rigorous bar for this :)

To expand on this a bit more, for documents in the IRTF stream, we ask the document shepherd to approve changes during AUTH48 that we evaluate to be either “technical” or “above editorial”. (For the IETF, IAB, and Independent streams, we ask the responsible AD, IAB Chair, and ISE, respectively, to approve such changes.)

Technical changes include updates to values, code, equations, key words (defined by RFC 2119), etc. Changes that we consider “above editorial” include added text, deleted text, revised sentences where the meaning may have changed or been expanded, etc. We do err on the side of caution when evaluating this, so you’re right that our bar may seem a bit rigorous!

2)
>> a) We updated to use docName="draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08”. Per the XML vocabulary at https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#rfc (see “Attributes” tab), the docName "Indicates the draft name (including revision number) for a draft, or the draft from which an RFC derived, for an RFC.” 
> 
> Interesting; RFC 7991 says that this attribute is deprecated, and to instead use the "value" attribute in <seriesInfo> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.3). This might be why mmark uses the "value" attribute in <seriesInfo> _as_ the value of the docName attribute (and provides no way to directly configure it).
> 
> Should the rfcxml-vocabulary page or RFC 7991 be authoritative? Which should I be referencing for normative behaviour when opening the mmark issue?

The RFCXML vocabulary page (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary) notes this at the top: "The current version of the RFCXML vocabulary is v3 and this page is currently the authoritative documentation for v3, superseding RFC 7991 as multiple changes have been made since the publication of RFC 7991.”

3)
>> f) Regarding this:
>> 
>> >       • mmark requires a full date for an RFC, not just a year and month; I picked October 14 (being the day this thread began). I presume this will be updated for the final publication.
>> 
>> We removed the day attribute in the xml file. We publish RFCs with only month and year, with the exception of April 1 RFCs. Note that we also updated the month from “October” to “November”.
> 
> Thanks (I'd assumed that things like this were handled by xml2rfc). Opened https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/issues/214.

The day attribute is used for Internet-Drafts, which may be why mmark requires it (I am not very familiar with mmark so I don’t know for sure). The day attribute of the date element is also sometimes used in a front element within a reference element.

We do not use the day attribute for published RFCs (except for April 1 RFCs) and thus remove it when we format and edit a document.


Thank you for your time and attention, Jack! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Nov 6, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Jack Grigg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi RFC Editor/rv,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:57 AM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> 
> Thank you for your reply and for the updated XML file. We have made a few updates to the file you sent; we have detailed those changes below along with responses your questions. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns. If all changes are satisfactory, respond with your approval of the document in its current form. We have included links to the updated files below. 
> 
> Thanks for the updates. Some of the changes you've made are related to details about how mmark generates the XML, which AFAIK are implemented based on how the xml2rfc tool behaves. I've opened issues for changing these details, citing your comments (as the end arbiter of "what goes into an RFC document" is the RFC Editor).
>  
> 
> Note that once you approve the changes, we will ask the document shepherd to approve updates that are above editorial.
> 
> Sounds good. I tried to only suggest changes that I considered editorial (and did not suggest some good changes that I felt would be above editorial), but I can appreciate you having a more rigorous bar for this :)
>  
> 
> Comments:
> 
> a) We updated to use docName="draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08”. Per the XML vocabulary at https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#rfc (see “Attributes” tab), the docName "Indicates the draft name (including revision number) for a draft, or the draft from which an RFC derived, for an RFC.” 
> 
> Interesting; RFC 7991 says that this attribute is deprecated, and to instead use the "value" attribute in <seriesInfo> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.3). This might be why mmark uses the "value" attribute in <seriesInfo> _as_ the value of the docName attribute (and provides no way to directly configure it).
> 
> Should the rfcxml-vocabulary page or RFC 7991 be authoritative? Which should I be referencing for normative behaviour when opening the mmark issue?
>  
> 
> 
> b) We removed the following from the xml file: 
> 
>   <area>Internet</area>
> 
> For IRTF documents, we include <workgroup>, set to the RG name without the words "Research Group”. We do not include <area>.
> 
> Opened https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/issues/213.
>  
> 
> 
> c) We updated the smart single quote mark to a straight one in the added reference entry. We use ASCII equivalents for punctuation per the "Use of non-ASCII characters” section of the "Web Portion of the Style Guide” (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#nonascii).
> 
> ACK; I wasn't aware of this line in the style guide (and completely missed that I'd copied a smart quote).
>  
> 
> 
> d) Regarding this update:
> 
> > • Use an en-dash for Diffie–Hellman.
> 
> We reverted the en-dashes to hyphens. As mentioned above, we use ASCII equivalents for punctuation per the "Use of non-ASCII characters” section of the "Web Portion of the Style Guide” (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#nonascii).
> 
> ACK (as above).
>  
> 
> 
> e) Regarding this:
> 
> >       • mmark does not support including the <!DOCTYPE rfc [...]> element at the top of the file; I had to prepend that manually to the attached XML file.
> >               • Is this something that all RFCs going forward will include in their XML? If so, I can open an issue with mmark to prepend it.
> 
> I will look into this and get back to you.
> 
> Thanks :)
>  
> 
> 
> f) Regarding this:
> 
> >       • mmark requires a full date for an RFC, not just a year and month; I picked October 14 (being the day this thread began). I presume this will be updated for the final publication.
> 
> We removed the day attribute in the xml file. We publish RFCs with only month and year, with the exception of April 1 RFCs. Note that we also updated the month from “October” to “November”.
> 
> Thanks (I'd assumed that things like this were handled by xml2rfc). Opened https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/issues/214.
>  
> 
> 
> Updated XML file:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.xml
> 
> Updated output files:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.html
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-auth48diff.html
> 
> Diff file showing changes between version sent by email on 29 Oct and current version:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-lastrfcdiff.html
> 
> Diff files showing all changes:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
> 
> I approve of the document in its current form.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jack
>  
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. 
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9496
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/rv
> 
> 
> > On Oct 29, 2023, at 10:44 PM, Jack Grigg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have completed my final review and suggested changes. Daira Emma Hopwood also kindly took a look and gave suggestions, some of which I have incorporated. All of the RFC Editor's questions have been addressed.
> > 
> > The XML file with changes applied is attached. The diff of changes can be viewed here:
> > 
> > https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255/compare/rfc-editor-changes...str4d-final-review
> > 
> > Summary of the changes (which is also visible as the list of commits at the above URL):
> >       • Revert removal of formatting during editorial changes.
> >       • Tweaks to make the entire document consistent with editorial changes.
> >       • Consistent formatting and section headers for ristretto255 and decaf448.
> >       • [Q1] Add keywords.
> >       • [Q3] Reword "Discrete Log Hardness".
> >       • [Q4] Clarify the sentence about benefits of Edwards curves.
> >       • Clarify that not handling abstraction mismatch is not a protocol tweak.
> >       • Add reference for Ed25519 validation criteria imprecision.
> >       • Reword last sentence of "Curve25519" caution to remove "its".
> >       • [Q5] Update references to RFC 9380 encoding functions.
> >       • [Q6] Replace "its" with the "canonical generator" it refers to.
> >       • Clarify that `u/v` quantities are (non-)square in the field.
> >       • Replace `a == b` with `CT_EQ(a, b)`, and clarify that the equivalent byte comparison would also be done in constant time.
> >       • [Q7] Clarify "reflect" in "API Considerations".
> >       • [Q8] Replace "allowed operations" with clearer wording.
> >       • [Q10] Alter test vector whitespace to fit within the 69-character margin.
> >       • [Q11] Move notes into `<aside>` elements.
> >       • Use fixed-width rendering in a few more places (`IS_NEGATIVE()` and `l`).
> >       • Render non-code exponents as superscript in HTML.
> >       • Use an en-dash for Diffie–Hellman.
> >       • Miscellaneous minor editorial cleanups.
> >       • Update Daira Emma's name.
> > Note that the above changes, and the attached XML file, are relative to this commit in which I reproduced the RFC Editor's XML changes in our Markdown source:
> > 
> > https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255/commit/92e813635f39dd95f1877f8af25e066daaa94d50
> > 
> > There are slight formatting differences in the resulting generated XML in that commit (due to the mmark generator), but there should be no semantic differences between the generated XML as of this commit and the RFC Editor's provided XML, except for these few points:
> >       • mmark does not support including the <!DOCTYPE rfc [...]> element at the top of the file; I had to prepend that manually to the attached XML file.
> >               • Is this something that all RFCs going forward will include in their XML? If so, I can open an issue with mmark to prepend it.
> >       • mmark requires a full date for an RFC, not just a year and month; I picked October 14 (being the day this thread began). I presume this will be updated for the final publication.
> >       • mmark does not allow inserting &nbsp; into a contact's fullname field (doing so breaks the <contact> element generation). I saw that the RFC Editor had added this after the S. in Riad S. Wahby's name; was this intentional? I have left it out of the attached XML file; please re-add it if it is critically necessary.
> > Cheers,
> > Jack
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 12:30 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > RFC 5743 section 2.1 requires those statements in the abstract and introduction, separately to the boilerplate. 
> > Colin
> > 
> > On 27 Oct 2023, at 11:58, Jack Grigg wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Colin.
> > 
> > Relatedly, I note that the consensus attribute's boilerplate text is duplicative of the last paragraph of the Introduction. The latter was added in February in response to your review (as well as an earlier request to add IRTF required statements). Is it still necessary now that the Status of This Memo section has the consensus boilerplate, or could that paragraph be removed?
> > 
> > For comparison, I note that the last paragraph of the Introduction to RFC 9380 is equal to the first sentence of our final Introduction paragraph, i.e. it omits the second sentence.
> > 
> > Jack
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:33 PM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The consensus attribute does have meaning for the IRTF stream and selects between two different versions of the boilerplate.
> > 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/headers-and-boilerplate/
> > 
> > Colin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 26 Oct 2023, at 4:22, Jack Grigg wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:22 AM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Authors,
> > 
> > Jack, thank you for your reply - please send along comments and updates from your review once complete. 
> > 
> > Apologies for the delay on this; I got COVID for the first time a few weeks ago, and my "next week" was entirely too optimistic about how quickly I'd recover. I'm about half-way through my final review, and will hopefully complete it in the next few days.
> > 
> > Part of my review process involved porting the RFC Editor changes to our reference Markdown source code, and regenerating the XML from that with mmark. I have found a few differences between what the RFC Editor provided and what mmark generates; some of them are just formatting (or generation of empty blocks), and some of them look like bugs or unimplemented features in mmark (for which I am opening issues). There is one point I am unclear on however, that I would like to clarify.
> > 
> > The RFC Editor changed the document stream metadata from IETF to IRTF, and also added the attribute consensus = "true". mmark only adds the consensus attribute for documents in the IETF stream. RFC 7991 doesn't say whether the consensus attribute is stream-dependent, and points to RFC 7841, which in an appendix appears to indicate that consensus language can be present for IRFT stream documents. Is it intended that the consensus attribute be used with IRTF stream documents (i.e. is this a bug in mmark)?
> >  
> > 
> > Authors, please review the document and let us know if any updates are needed.
> > 
> > Once my review is complete, I will reply here with both the generated XML, and links to the GitHub repo with diffs of all formats.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jack
> >  
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/sg
> > 
> > > On Oct 13, 2023, at 10:36 PM, Jack Grigg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Thank you RFC Editor/sg/ap for your work! I will perform my final review next week, but in the interim I can respond to some of the questions.
> > >
> > > For clarity, this email is NOT suggesting any immediate changes to the text (I will make my own suggestions after my review).
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:47 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 insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC 5743
> > > have been adhered to in this document.  See
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5743.html#section-2.1.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please consider including a reference for "Discrete Log Hardness".
> > > We do not see this phrase in RFCs and we did not find directly matching hits via
> > > our general searches.  Is this the same as the "hardness of the discrete logarithm
> > > problem"? 
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    This means the group has a cofactor
> > >    of 1, and all elements are equivalent from the perspective of
> > >    Discrete Log Hardness.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that "Discrete Log Hardness" and "hardness of the discrete logarithm problem" could be used interchangeably here.
> > > 
> > >
> > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following for readability.  Please review to
> > > ensure we have not altered the meaning.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Edwards curves provide a number of implementation benefits for
> > >    cryptography, such as complete addition formulas with no exceptional
> > >    points and formulas among the fastest known for curve operations.
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    Edwards curves provide a number of implementation benefits for
> > >    cryptography, such as complete addition formulas with no exceptional
> > >    points and formulas known to be among the fastest for curve
> > >    operations.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Is "hash_to_curve" considered an algorithm? RFC 9380 refers to
> > > it as an encoding function.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    In some contexts this property would be a weakness, but it is
> > >    important in some contexts: in particular, it means that a
> > >    combination of a cryptographic hash function and the element
> > >    derivation function is suitable for use in algorithms such as
> > >    hash_to_curve [draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve-16].
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > A "hash-to-curve algorithm" is something we would have referred to, yes. This specific reference should be adjusted however, because the now-published RFC 9380 specifically constrains the definition of hash_to_curve, and in Appendix B defines hash_to_ristretto255 with the same security properties and interface (and similarly for decaf448 in Appendix C). I'll think about a suggestion during my review.
> > >
> > > Relatedly, I notice that RFC 9380 refers to an old version of this RFC-to-be. Once RFC 9496 is published, I presume that RFC 9380's reference will be fixed? Their reference link is the one that implementers will be following more (our reference here is effectively an informational backlink).
> > > 
> > >
> > > 6) <!-- [rfced] To what does "its" refer in the last sentence?
> > >
> > > Original (the paragraph is provided for context):
> > >    Since ristretto255 is a prime-order group, every element except the
> > >    identity is a generator, but for interoperability a canonical
> > >    generator is selected, which can be internally represented by the
> > >    Curve25519 basepoint, enabling reuse of existing precomputation for
> > >    scalar multiplication.  This is its encoding as produced by the
> > >    function specified in Section 4.3.2:
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > "its" in the last sentence refers to "a canonical generator" in the previous sentence.
> > > 
> > >
> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] May we change "reflect" to "note" here?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Implementations SHOULD reflect that: the
> > >    type representing an element of the group SHOULD be opaque to the
> > >    caller, meaning they do not expose the underlying curve point or
> > >    field elements.
> > >
> > > Suggested:
> > >    Implementations SHOULD note that the
> > >    type representing an element of the group SHOULD be opaque to the
> > >    caller, meaning they do not expose the underlying curve point or
> > >    field elements.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think so, assuming that "note" is meant in the sense "to take notice of". The SHOULD applies as-written to implementations, not implementers. An implementation reflects what its implementer has noted.
> > >
> > > I will consider during my review whether in context "Implementations SHOULD reflect" or "Implementers SHOULD note" makes more sense.
> > > 
> > >
> > > 8) <!--[rfced] May we clarify "allowed operations" as follows?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The decoding
> > >    function always returns a valid internal representation, or an error,
> > >    and allowed operations on valid internal representations return valid
> > >    internal representations.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    The decoding
> > >    function always returns a valid internal representation, or an error,
> > >    and operations that are allowed on valid internal representations return valid
> > >    internal representations.
> > > -->   
> > >
> > >
> > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have alphabetized the references. Please let us know
> > > of any objections.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 10) <!-- [rfced] The sourcecode in Appendices A.1, A.2, and A.3 extend
> > > beyond the 69-character margin.  Please let us know how the lines may
> > > be broken. 
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > As these are not actual source code with established parsing rules, breaking the lines must be done carefully to ensure that adjacent test vectors are correctly separated. I'll make a suggestion to this effect in my review.
> > > 
> > >
> > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
> > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
> > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
> > > content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > For example, please consider whether "whitespace" should be updated.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > "Whitespace" here means any character that represents horizontal or vertical space in typography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_character). To my knowledge there are no "positive or less harmful" connotations associated with this term (unlike other historic terms of art in computer science), and I don't know of another term that denotes the same set. But really all we need here is a concise way to say "if you're copy-pasting these hex strings into your code, any spaces, tabs, newlines, or whatever else the rendered version of this RFC happens to put into those gaps can be ignored and must be removed, and the position of them is irrelevant".
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jack
> > > 
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/sg/ap
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2023, at 4:46 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2023/10/13
> > >
> > > 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/rfc9496.xml
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.pdf
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496.txt
> > >
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-diff.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > >
> > > Diff of the XML:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9496-xmldiff1.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9496
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions. 
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9496 (draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448-08)
> > >
> > > Title            : The ristretto255 and decaf448 Groups
> > > Author(s)        : H. Valence, J. Grigg, M. Hamburg, I. Lovecruft, G. Tankersley, F. Valsorda
> > > WG Chair(s)      :
> > > Area Director(s) :
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > <rfc9496-with-str4d-changes.xml>
>