Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the 
following questions, which are also in the source file.


1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the abbreviated title as follows. The
abbreviated title appears in the center of the running header at the top
of each page in the PDF output.

Original:
 NTRUPrime+X25519 for SSH

Updated:
 NTRUPrime and X25519 for SSH
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, may we either update to use complete titles 
of
the RFCs or use just the citation? Note that other instances in the
document use just the citation, as does similar text in RFC 8731.

a) From Introduction

Original:
   Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4251] is a secure remote login protocol.  The
   key exchange protocol described in SSH transport layer [RFC4253]
   supports an extensible set of methods.  Elliptic Curve Algorithms in
   SSH [RFC5656] defines how elliptic curves are integrated into the
   extensible SSH framework, and SSH KEX Using Curve25519 and Curve448
   [RFC8731] adds curve25519-sha256 to support the pre-quantum elliptic-
   curve Diffie-Hellman X25519 function [RFC7748].
   ...
   This document was derived from SSH KEX Using Curve25519 and Curve448
   [RFC8731].

Perhaps A (full titles):
   "The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture" [RFC4251] is a secure
   remote login protocol.  The key exchange protocol described in "The
   Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol" [RFC4253] supports an
   extensible set of methods.  The "Elliptic Curve Algorithm Integration
   in the Secure Shell Transport Layer" [RFC5656] defines how elliptic
   curves are integrated into the extensible SSH framework, and the
   "Secure Shell (SSH) Key Exchange Method Using Curve25519 and Curve448"
   [RFC8731] adds curve25519-sha256 to support the pre-quantum Elliptic
   Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) X25519 function [RFC7748].
   ...
   This document was derived from "Secure Shell (SSH) Key Exchange Method
   Using Curve25519 and Curve448" [RFC8731].

Perhaps B (just citations):
   Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4251] is a secure remote login protocol.  The
   key exchange protocol described in [RFC4253]
   supports an extensible set of methods.  
   [RFC5656] defines how elliptic curves are integrated into the
   extensible SSH framework, and
   [RFC8731] adds curve25519-sha256 to support the pre-quantum Elliptic
   Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) X25519 function [RFC7748].
   ...
   This document was derived from [RFC8731].


b) From Section 3

Original:
   For consistency with ECC in SSH [RFC5656], which define the packet
   syntax, we use those names in the rest of this document.

Perhaps A (full titles):
   For consistency with "Elliptic Curve Algorithm Integration in the
   Secure Shell Transport Layer" [RFC5656], which defines the packet
   syntax, we use those names in the rest of this document.

Perhaps B (just citations):
   For consistency with [RFC5656], which defines the packet
   syntax, we use those names in the rest of this document.


c) From Security Considerations

Original:
   The security considerations of the SSH Protocol [RFC4251], ECC for
   SSH [RFC5656], Elliptic Curves for Security [RFC7748], and SSH KEX
   Using Curve25519 and Curve448 [RFC8731] are inherited.

Perhaps A (full titles):
   The security considerations of the following are inherited:

   *  "The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture" [RFC4251]

   *  "Elliptic Curve Algorithm Integration in the Secure Shell Transport 
Layer" [RFC5656]

   *  "Elliptic Curves for Security" [RFC7748]

   *  "Secure Shell (SSH) Key Exchange Method Using Curve25519 and Curve448" 
[RFC8731]

Perhaps B (just citations):
   The security considerations in [RFC4251], [RFC5656], [RFC7748], and
   [RFC8731] are inherited.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following phrases in the sentence below and
consider how to update for clarity.

- "security considerations of Curve25519-sha256 [RFC8731]"
- "is used bignum-encoded"
- "hash-processing time side-channel"

Original:
   As discussed in the security considerations of Curve25519-sha256
   [RFC8731], the X25519 shared secret K is used bignum-encoded in that
   document, and this raise a potential for a hash-processing time side-
   channel that could leak one bit of the secret due to different length
   of the bignum sign pad.

Perhaps:
   As discussed in the security considerations of
   [RFC8731], the X25519 shared secret K is bignum-encoded in that
   document, and this raises the potential for a side-
   channel attack that could leak one bit of the secret due to the different 
length
   of the bignum sign pad.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Artwork/sourcecode

a) We updated the <artwork> in Appendix A to <sourcecode
type="test-vectors">. Please confirm that the value "test-vectors" is
correct. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types. If this list
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to suggest a new one.
Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.

b) The lines in the figure in Appendix A are too long for the TXT output. For
sourcecode, the maximum line length is 69 characters (the current is 71
characters). Please let us know how to update to fit this requirement.
-->


6) <!-- [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.  Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

Sarah Tarrant and Rebecca VanRheenen
RFC Production Center



On Mar 6, 2026, at 7:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2026/03/06

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

  *  [email protected] (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).

  *  [email protected], 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, 
       [email protected] 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/rfc9941.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will 
allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or 
moved: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9941-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9941

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9941 (draft-ietf-sshm-ntruprime-ssh-06)

Title            : Secure Shell (SSH) Key Exchange Method Using Hybrid 
Streamlined NTRU Prime sntrup761 and X25519 with SHA-512: sntrup761x25519-sha512
Author(s)        : M. Friedl, J. Mojzis, S. Josefsson
WG Chair(s)      : Stephen Farrell, Job Snijders

Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to