Hi Sean, All, Sean - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9935). For updated files, please see below.
All - We now have all necessary approvals and will begin moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you for your time and efforts! Updated files: 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) Best, Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Feb 27, 2026, at 9:09 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Madison, > > One minor nit and then I approve: > > In Section 4 - to make the idents for pk-ml-kem-* all line up: > > OLD: > > PRIVATE-KEY ML-KEM-1024-PrivateKey -- defined in Section 6 > } > > NEW: > > PRIVATE-KEY ML-KEM-1024-PrivateKey -- defined in Section 6 > } > > spt > >> On Feb 26, 2026, at 13:30, Madison Church <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> This is a friendly reminder that we await your approval for this document. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Madison Church >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Feb 19, 2026, at 9:52 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Panos, >>> >>> Thank you for the confirmation! All questions have now been addressed. >>> >>> Once we receive approval from Sean, we will move this document forward in >>> the publication process. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 8:46 PM, Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
