RFC Errata
RFC 9106, "Argon2 Memory-Hard Function for Password Hashing and Proof-of-Work Applications", September 2021
Source of RFC: IRTFSee Also: RFC 9106 w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 7721
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: David Finnie
Date Reported: 2023-12-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2023-12-07
Section 3.2 says:
6. If the number of passes t is larger than 1, we repeat step 5. We compute B[i][0] and B[i][j] for all i raging from (and including) 0 to (not including) p and for all j ranging from (and including) 1 to (not including) q. However, blocks are computed differently as the old value is XORed with the new one: B[i][0] = G(B[i][q-1], B[l][z]) XOR B[i][0]; B[i][j] = G(B[i][j-1], B[l][z]) XOR B[i][j].
It should say:
6. If the number of passes t is larger than 1, we repeat step 5. We compute B[i][0] and B[i][j] for all i ranging from (and including) 0 to (not including) p and for all j ranging from (and including) 1 to (not including) q. However, blocks are computed differently as the old value is XORed with the new one: B[i][0] = G(B[i][q-1], B[l][z]) XOR B[i][0]; B[i][j] = G(B[i][j-1], B[l][z]) XOR B[i][j].
Notes:
Firstly: nice, clear RFC. Well done.
I know it's really minor, and we all like to have "fun with flags", but..."ranging" rather than "raging" :-)