Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi again,

One additional note: please ignore the updated URLs in the references for the RFC entries.  This is an error with the citation library and will be reverted before publication.  We have filed a bug ticket; see https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/339.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg


> On Feb 14, 2023, at 9:37 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stanislav,
> 
> Thank you for your updated XML file and your replies to our questions.  The files are available here: 
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.html
> 
> AUTH48 diff: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive diffs: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> 
> Authors, please let us know if you approve the RFC for publication. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the process.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 4:07 AM, Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <svs=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear RFC Editor Team,
>> 
>> Thank you so much for your careful reading of the draft and your valuable comments!
>> We have addressed them. 
>> Please find attached the updated XML file.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Stanislav Smyshlyaev, Ph.D.
>> Deputy CEO, CryptoPro LLC
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:27 AM
>> To: Смышляев Станислав Витальевич <[e-mail]>; Алексеев Евгений Константинович <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Бабуева Александра Алексеевна <[e-mail]>; Никифорова Лидия Олеговна <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9367 <draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08> for your review
>> 
>> Authors,
>> 
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Generally, authors use a single first initial with a surname in the header.  Is the use of two initials intentional?  If an update is necessary, please let us know the desired form.
>> 
>> Original (from the document header):
>> S.V. Smyshlyaev, Ed.
>> E.K. Alekseev
>> E.S. Griboedova
>> A.A. Babueva
>> L.O. Nikiforova
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [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). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] This sentence seems to be missing a verb. Would the following suggestion make the text more clear for readers?
>> 
>> Original: 
>> Each cipher suite specifies a pair of a record protection algorithm (see Section 4.1) and a hash algorithm (Section 4.2).
>> 
>> Perhaps: 
>> Each cipher suite specifies a pair consisting of a record protection algorithm (see Section 4.1) and a hash algorithm (Section 4.2). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rewording this sentence for easy comprehension. 
>> Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?
>> 
>> Original: 
>> In order to decrypt and verify a protected record with sequence number seqnum the algorithm takes as an input: sender_record_write_key, which is derived from sender_write_key, nonce, additional_data and the AEADEncrypted value.
>> 
>> Perhaps: 
>> In order to decrypt and verify a protected record with sequence number seqnum, the algorithm takes sender_record_write_key as an input, which is derived from sender_write_key, nonce, additional_data, and the AEADEncrypted value. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred values for "type" 
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
>> 
>> In addition, we have updated the <artwork> elements in this document to sourcecode. Please let us know any objections. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Some tables in this document do not have titles.
>> Please review, and provide titles for untitled tables if desired. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] This sentence seems to be missing a verb. Would the following
>> suggestion make the text easier to understand for readers?  
>> 
>> Original:
>> Each signature scheme specifies a pair of the signature algorithm
>> (see Section 5.1) and the elliptic curve (see Section 5.2).
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>> Each signature scheme specifies a pair consisting of the signature algorithm
>> (see Section 5.1) and the elliptic curve (see Section 5.2). --> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Table 3: Is the space before the comma in the Signature Algorithm column intentional?  For example, should the following:
>> 
>> |gostr34102012_256a|GOST R 34.10-2012 , 32-byte key length|RFC 7091|
>> 
>> be updated as follows: 
>> |gostr34102012_256a|GOST R 34.10-2012, 32-byte key length|RFC 7091|
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] There seems to be a missing article in this sentence. 
>> Would a rephrase be appropriate here?
>> 
>> Original: 
>> Key exchange and authentication process in case of using the
>> TLS13_GOST profile is defined in Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
>> 
>> Perhaps: 
>> The key exchange and authentication process for using the
>> TLS13_GOST profile is defined in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the usage of "which" to "that" for the 
>> following items in this list since they appear to be restrictive clauses. 
>> Please let us know any objections.
>> 
>> Original: 
>> * If server authentication via a certificate is required, the
>> extension_data field of the "signature_algorithms" extension MUST contain the
>> values defined in Section 5, which correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012
>> signature algorithm.
>> 
>> * If server authentication via a certificate is required and the client uses
>> optional "signature_algorithms_cert" extension, the extension_data field of
>> this extension SHOULD contain the values defined in Section 5, which
>> correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature algorithm.
>> 
>> Current: 
>> * If server authentication via a certificate is required, the
>> extension_data field of the "signature_algorithms" extension MUST contain the
>> values defined in Section 5 that correspond to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature
>> algorithm.
>> 
>> * If server authentication via a certificate is required and the client uses
>> optional "signature_algorithms_cert" extension, the extension_data field of
>> this extension SHOULD contain the values defined in Section 5 that correspond
>> to the GOST R 34.10-2012 signature algorithm. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the
>> comments will be deleted prior to publication. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Table 6: Note that we have closed the breaks in the Description to avoid having multiple underscores following 256.  However, 
>> this makes the table extend beyond the margins.  May we remove the Reference 
>> column and add text that each row references this RFC?  For example:
>> 
>>  IANA has added the following values to the "TLS Cipher Suites"
>>  registry with a reference to this RFC: 
>> 
>>  +=====+=========================================+=======+===========+
>>  |Value|Description                              |DTLS-OK|Recommended|
>>  +=====+=========================================+=======+===========+
>>  |0xC1,|TLS_GOSTR341112_256_WITH_KUZNYECHIK_MGM_L|N      |N          |
>>  |0x03 |                                         |       |           |
>>  ... 
>> 
>> 
>> In addiiton, IANA lists the values with no space, for example, 0x00,0x00, 
>> while this document includes a space after the comma.  We do not believe any 
>> updates are required, but please review. 
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 13) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing this sentence for easy comprehension. 
>> Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?  In addition, 
>> please confirm that the reference to table 5 is correct.  
>> 
>> Original: 
>> Due to historical reasons in addition to the curve identifier values
>> listed in Table 5 there exist some additional identifier values that
>> correspond to the signature schemes as follows.
>> 
>> Perhaps: 
>> In addition to the curve identifier values listed in Table 5, there are some
>> additional identifier values that correspond to the signature schemes for historical reasons.  They are as follows: -->
>> 
>> 
>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Appendixes A.1.1 and A.2.1 start with the following sentence.  
>> We are having trouble parsing this text.  Please clarify. 
>> 
>> Original:
>>  Test examples are given for the following order of using the TLS13_GOST 
>>  profile:
>> 
>> Perhaps A:
>>  Test examples are given in the following order to use the TLS13_GOST 
>>  profile:
>> 
>> Perhaps B:
>>  The following test examples are provided for using the TLS13_GOST profile:
>> 
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 15) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows? 
>> 
>> Original:
>>  3.  The server side only authentication is used.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>  3.  Authentication is only used on the server side.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 16) <!-- [rfced] May we update instances of "legasy_session_id" to use 
>> "legacy" or is the use of "legasy" intentional? 
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 17) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? 
>> 
>> Original:
>>  3.  The server and client sides authentication is used.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>  3.  Authentication is used on the server and client sides.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be 
>> used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
>> they may be made consistent. We will update the document to use the forms
>> on the left if there are no objections.
>> 
>> signature scheme vs. SignatureScheme
>> hash algorithm vs. Hash algorithm -->
>> 
>> 
>> 19) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 8:48 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2023/02/06
>> 
>> 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/rfc9367.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367-xmldiff1.html
>> 
>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>> diff files of the XML.  
>> 
>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.original.v2v3.xml 
>> 
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9367.form.xml
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9367
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9367 (draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites-08)
>> 
>> Title            : GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
>> Author(s)        : S. Smyshlyaev, Ed., E. Alekseev, E. Griboedova, A. Babueva, L. Nikiforova
>> WG Chair(s)      : 
>> Area Director(s) : 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <rfc9367.xml>
>