Hi Madison, About 5), let's keep the "but" because it depicts that you save some checks, but you also lose some security.
About 7), yes, the Warning can be an <aside>. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Madison Church <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 4:13 PM To: Massimo, Jake <[email protected]>; Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]>; Bas Westerbaan <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9935 <draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-11> for your review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Panos and Jake, Thank you both for your prompt approvals. We have noted them on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9935). Since the changes in the diff files have been acknowledged and approved so far per Panos's mail on 10 February, we believe there are only 2 remaining questions that require author input. They have been pasted below. > 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "but" be "and", or perhaps "so"? It's not clear that > the text after "but" is in contrast to the earlier part of the sentence. > > Original: > Recipients that do not perform this seed consistency check avoid > keygen and compare operations, but are unable to ensure that the seed > and expandedKey match. > > Perhaps: > Recipients that do not perform this seed consistency check avoid > keygen and compare operations and are unable to ensure that the seed > and expandedKey match. > --> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the WARNING should be tagged as an > <aside>, which 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). > > Original: > C.4. Examples of Bad Private Keys > > | WARNING: These private keys are purposely bad do not use them > | in production systems. > --> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.xml Updated diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Once the remaining questions above have been resolved and Sean has provided his approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Feb 18, 2026, at 12:55 PM, Massimo, Jake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes I approve! > > Cheers, > Jake > > From: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 at 9:22 AM > To: Madison Church <[email protected]>, Bas Westerbaan > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Massimo, Jake > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9935 > <draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-11> for your review > > Thank you, looks great, I approve. > > Sean, Jake? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Madison Church <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:20 PM > To: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]>; Bas Westerbaan > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Massimo, Jake > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9935 > <draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-11> for your review > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > Hi Panos, > > Thanks for pointing this out! We originally incorporated your feedback but > did not post the correct files. If you refresh, they should now include the > changes proposed on 10 February. > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935.xml > > Updated diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9935-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > Thank you, and apologies for the inconvenience! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Feb 18, 2026, at 11:12 AM, > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
