Hi Dieter,
First, thank you for editing this monster!
Bolding of CKR_, CK_, C_, etc. items in the body of the text is inconsistent. At some point, we should add a section at the top that defines how these items will be formatted in the text and then consistently apply that formatting.
Line 1320 – 3.2 Last entry of Table 6, CKF_ASYNC_SESSION_SUPPORTED, the third column could include a (see Section 5.21)
Line 1423 – 3.3 Last entry of Table 7, CKF_ASYNC_SESSION_SUPPORTED, the third column could include a (see Section 5.21)
Line 2830 – 5 After Table 35 there is a set of bullets about what happens in a Cryptoki function call. Should we add a bullet here discussing CKR_PENDING and referring the reader to Section 5.21?
Line 14585 - 6.44.4 references RFC 2630 which is very old. The current one is RFC 5652.
Line 17219 – 6.67.6 Hash ML-DSA Signature - The data passed in is a hash value, right? It's not the hash of a signature, is it?
Line 17236 – 6.67.7 FIPS 204 calls it "Pre-hash" with a hyphen, I recommend we do as well .
Line 17236 – 6.67.7 I think "Hash ML-DSA Signature Pre-hash with hashing" could do without some of the "hash" words. Removing "pre-hash" is my preference.
Line 17544 – 6.69.7 Same basic comment, too many "hash" words IMO. Removing "pre-hash" is my preference.
Sincerely,
Jonathan